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.

I know that it was discussed to have people not just rest on the message center, because the refresh, of course, uses up resources. Could this be part of the problem? I try not to rest there, but sometimes do anyway, and I'm sure everyone else is like me, cuz, well, I sure am.

Should we be announcing some of this "how to conserve board resources" over in Press? Because I had no idea until today that leaving the message center up was a problem, nor that it would be better if I meara'ed, nor that I should set my posts per page count higher. I usually have a separate browser window for Buffistas, which sits merrily on the message center all day. I won't anymore, but I didn't know any better. (I assume this was discussed in BaBBB, where I never go because it's like overhearing Spanish. I understand many of the individual words, but little of what they mean when put together.)