Would having four threads with the same number of posts as, say, twelve, make any difference on the problem in question?

Yes. Fewer threads with the same number of posts taxes the server less.

Would it help to try to voluntarily limit fun, though contentless, posts--such as number-slutting or lots of -ma posts or Happy Birthdays or whatever?

Actually, yes. Though I would say you don't have to stop wishing someone luck or happy birthday or whatever. Just include it in your next content filled post or something.

I had been planning to ask someone to sub for me running the deathmatches while I was in NYC, but if it will help we can put those on hold while I'm away, and maybe come up with a permanent solution during those two weeks.

Would it help to try to voluntarily limit fun

This cracks me up.

I just want to say, I know I'm being hardcore, and that can suck, and preserving board culture goes hand in hand with preserving the board.

But really, there are threads that can go. I'd toss out Natter, Bitches, Sang Sacre, and consolidate the fic threads to start. See how October goes. Survive a Joss visit. Then, if we've found that hey, we still had an assload of room to breath, we can add back what we've lost, slowly.

One will absorb the other.

Even cutting just one of the two would cause a significant drop in the total amount of posts, I think. ne would absorb the other, but I don't think one would be able to absorb the entire volume of both.

If it does, then we're faced with the possibility that it doesn't matter what we cut, even if we cut both, the other threads will absorb the full (and ever increaseing) volume of what used to be Natter and Bitches, and we're back to our Ticking Time Bomb of Doom.

Plus, there's also the possibilty that the problem is the roughly 200 active posters, and the possibility that there are just times that most of us are bored and on the board at the same time, and every now and then, we all hit refresh at once... BOOM! 150+ SQL connections.

Would it help to try to voluntarily limit fun

This cracks me up.

Me too.

Yes. Fewer threads with the same number of posts taxes the server less.

OK - this is useful information, I think. This should be anounced board-wide. I think it would help the consolidtation process.

Is there any REAL difference (like board-life threatening) between Natter and Bitches at this point?

In addition, I remember that Natter was started because it was taking up too much space on the show threads - if we are a BUFFY board, couldn't natter and bitches be rolled into the Buffy thread for consolidation sake (since Buffy itself is no longer a going concern)?

Can someone explain to me -- is it the number of posts, or the number of hits on the database? For instance, if I don't post but I read all day, am I a demonstrably lesser strain on the database than if I post frequently all day?

Another scenario is to not accept new members until we know what we've got. Could be an explosion when the new teevee season begins.

I think posts and hits cost the same. It's not a bandwidth issue. Then again, I'm a moron.

From what I understand, it's the total amount of clicks. Thus, a meara post replying to several people in one posts costs less then 18 individual small posts.

Can someone explain to me -- is it the number of posts, or the number of hits on the database? For instance, if I don't post but I read all day, am I a demonstrably lesser strain on the database than if I post frequently all day?

That's a damned important question, 'Suela. I have a sinking feeling that part of the problem may just be 150 people hitting refresh at about the same time. If that's the case, well...