by Steegy » Tue May 02, 2006 12:12 pm
So every url someone wants to use should be "added" to that service. That's a lot of useless work. What if that server is down? And what about search engines finding that url (they are uselessly rerouted too). And what about the extra internet traffic, the slowdown, and maybe the advertisment?
I don't see a problem with enlarging the signature size limitation a bit, so we can use more
direct links to forum threads
Of course, abuse should be handled appropriately by the mods (e.g. people having like 20 links to their own "personal" webpage). But abuse is already very possible, with large signature images (like the Last.fm ones
).
Of course your posts are larger due to scripts
Yes, and other scripters have already mentioned this too in the past. Some have problems with it, some (it seems) don't. But I'm sure that I have problems with large script posts.
That's why you sometimes see scripts splitted over 2 posts.
A trash or archived posts forum would need to be handled very well. A case closed for one person is a case still open for another. I think it's better to just leave it the way it is.
Well, I'm not really talking about "closed cases", I'm talking more about threads that only applied to MM version 0.0.0.1 and such, and about threads that are useless duplicates, or if there exist better information sources (like newer threads, online help, FAQ, ...).
For the last thing, just do a forum search for "surround playback". In the early threads, there was no solution. After that, someone found out to enable "hardware acceleration", so some threads mention this. Later the "set Windows sound speaker configuration to surround 5.1 or 7.1" were added, just as "update sound drivers if the problem still exists".
That means, over 15 totally useless threads about this subject exist, that are mostly very incomplete or not even solved. Newer threads + FAQ *do* mention the most accurate solution (as up to now), so these should be the first (and best the only) things to find.
I hate to find a lot of threads about one and the same subject, when there are only a few good ones. Mostly the good ones will be the most recent, but not in all cases (like when recent improved solutions haven't been noticed by the assisting person, so he gives the older, less-complete solution).
Hopefully you understand what I feel, with this example. This example is not a standalone case. There are lots of cases like this.
Performance seems okay with me. Maybe a hardware upgrade is needed to handle the increased number of users. I don't know what they are running this forum on.
I just mentioned "better performance" because archieving useless stuff would small down the forum database, and forum searches would be smaller and faster.
I don't have any performance issues with the forum, but that doesn't mean the server itself can be "relaxed" a bit. (I've only noticed some downtimes sometimes, but this is probably just a hosting issue).
Just think of a program that makes that your processor is used 99% all the time. If you're not doing anything, it takes 99 cpu%. If you're running a heavy application, the performance is still good because the other program takes less cpu% so the total is still 99%.
Even if the computer performance is always good (always 99%, never 100% like having not enough cpu), this program is bad. The computer has to do more work, even though it's not noticed by the user. The power and ventilation consumption will be higher, however.
It's a stupid comparison/example, but it indicates that computer usage should always be as low as possible, even if the end user doesn't see any difference.
Cheers
Steegy
[quote]http://tinyurl.com/[/quote]So every url someone wants to use should be "added" to that service. That's a lot of useless work. What if that server is down? And what about search engines finding that url (they are uselessly rerouted too). And what about the extra internet traffic, the slowdown, and maybe the advertisment?
I don't see a problem with enlarging the signature size limitation a bit, so we can use more [i]direct links[/i] to forum threads
Of course, abuse should be handled appropriately by the mods (e.g. people having like 20 links to their own "personal" webpage). But abuse is already very possible, with large signature images (like the Last.fm ones :lol: :lol:).
[quote]Of course your posts are larger due to scripts[/quote]Yes, and other scripters have already mentioned this too in the past. Some have problems with it, some (it seems) don't. But I'm sure that I have problems with large script posts.
That's why you sometimes see scripts splitted over 2 posts.
[quote]A trash or archived posts forum would need to be handled very well. A case closed for one person is a case still open for another. I think it's better to just leave it the way it is.[/quote]Well, I'm not really talking about "closed cases", I'm talking more about threads that only applied to MM version 0.0.0.1 and such, and about threads that are useless duplicates, or if there exist better information sources (like newer threads, online help, FAQ, ...).
For the last thing, just do a forum search for "surround playback". In the early threads, there was no solution. After that, someone found out to enable "hardware acceleration", so some threads mention this. Later the "set Windows sound speaker configuration to surround 5.1 or 7.1" were added, just as "update sound drivers if the problem still exists".
That means, over 15 totally useless threads about this subject exist, that are mostly very incomplete or not even solved. Newer threads + FAQ *do* mention the most accurate solution (as up to now), so these should be the first (and best the only) things to find.
I hate to find a lot of threads about one and the same subject, when there are only a few good ones. Mostly the good ones will be the most recent, but not in all cases (like when recent improved solutions haven't been noticed by the assisting person, so he gives the older, less-complete solution).
Hopefully you understand what I feel, with this example. This example is not a standalone case. There are lots of cases like this.
[quote]Performance seems okay with me. Maybe a hardware upgrade is needed to handle the increased number of users. I don't know what they are running this forum on.[/quote]I just mentioned "better performance" because archieving useless stuff would small down the forum database, and forum searches would be smaller and faster.
I don't have any performance issues with the forum, but that doesn't mean the server itself can be "relaxed" a bit. (I've only noticed some downtimes sometimes, but this is probably just a hosting issue).
[size=75]Just think of a program that makes that your processor is used 99% all the time. If you're not doing anything, it takes 99 cpu%. If you're running a heavy application, the performance is still good because the other program takes less cpu% so the total is still 99%.
Even if the computer performance is always good (always 99%, never 100% like having not enough cpu), this program is bad. The computer has to do more work, even though it's not noticed by the user. The power and ventilation consumption will be higher, however.
It's a stupid comparison/example, but it indicates that computer usage should always be as low as possible, even if the end user doesn't see any difference.[/size]
Cheers
Steegy