A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
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...
Another scenario is to not accept new members until we know what we've got.
I think that only helps us if we also made the board a closed forum. No unregistered lurkers.
Thus, a meara post replying to several people in one posts costs less then 18 individual small posts.
You are correct.
Except for static pages like the FAQ, every page view hits the database. Posting may hit it more than once -- I'm not sure.
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?
Hee hee. It's like the solution to overpopulation turns out to be me dating all the supermodels.
We could take over some other board's chat room for all of the live chatting. This might work if there are people who consider their posts in Natter as ethereal and never to be read by anyone but those who are there right then and Java Cat. I think most people post things because they think they're worth posting, though, so they wouldn't want to waste them in a chat room.
