Board question

Teknojnky · Post by **Teknojnky** » Tue May 02, 2006 8:52 am

Is it possible to increase the signature size, or make it so that the bbcode does not count against the character limit?

I would like to add links to a couple other useful scripts in my sig, but can't due to the size limit.

Steegy · Post by **Steegy** » Tue May 02, 2006 9:54 am

I'd like that too, for the same reason.

If it's possible, please also take a look at the "maximum posting size" problem. The problem appears on some systems (IE and FireFox) in the way of "page can not be found" when a too large post is posted. (maybe on internal server timeout time setting is too short?)

While we're busy: can there be a "trash" forum section, so all old&useless posts can be moved to that place (also devided into the normal forum sections)? That would make the forum much easier to search through, and better for new (and not-new) users. And maybe these could be archived after a while, so it'd be better for the server performance too.

Cheers
Steegy

trixmoto · Post by **trixmoto** » Tue May 02, 2006 10:42 am

You could use a site like http://tinyurl.com/ to shorten the links for you.

Post by **Lowlander** » Tue May 02, 2006 10:59 am

Never had problems with large postings. Of course your posts are larger due to scripts.

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.

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.

Steegy · Post by **Steegy** » Tue May 02, 2006 12:12 pm

http://tinyurl.com/

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

Post by **Lowlander** » Tue May 02, 2006 12:42 pm

That would be a lot of work as with each new release of MediaMonkey or even plugins and such messages could be moved to the archived section. As the search lists newest first it shouldn't be a problem.
Maybe phpBB has some nice solutions like auto-archiving posts that have been inactive for set period of time.

Anyway an archived section would also be in the database, so it wouldn't matter.

Post by **jiri** » Tue May 02, 2006 12:54 pm

I increased the maximum signature size as requested.

Jiri

Teknojnky · Post by **Teknojnky** » Tue May 02, 2006 2:19 pm

Thanks Jiri!

rovingcowboy · Post by **rovingcowboy** » Tue May 02, 2006 4:09 pm

Steegy

that is the moderators fuctions to go through the forum from time to time and remove the threads that do not apply to the current version of the program. or get rid of the spammers replays.

i know they are doing the above so the messages here are ones they thought still applied. or did not get too yet.

you can always send them an email with a link to the message in question.

that is what i do just ask lowlander he got lots of links to spammer replys from me and so has peke but i try not to bother peke since he is development also and is busy with that.

Teknojnky · Post by **Teknojnky** » Tue May 02, 2006 4:21 pm

Regarding spammers, it could probly be reduced some by requiring log in to post, instead of allowing any 'guest' to post.

Post by **Peke** » Tue May 02, 2006 4:48 pm

The big problem with few recent spammers is that they register on forum and then the post msgs.

cowboy you are not bothering me at all like no one else. Due to recent problems with my ISP and dev things (not just MM, bills needs to be paid) I'm slow on reps but I'm still here at least three times a day. PM with subject "Spam" is really helpfull (Cowboy thx for few of them). Please note that I'm for now on Dial-Up (0.07 €/Min).

Big_Berny · Post by **Big_Berny** » Tue May 02, 2006 5:29 pm

About spam: A lot of other boards use a code on a image which has to be tipped in a field before posting. I think this would be a useful solution for the guest-posters. Closing the forum for members only isn't a good idea, I think.

Big_Berny

Steegy · Post by **Steegy** » Tue May 02, 2006 6:01 pm

A lot of other boards use a code on a image which has to be tipped in a field before posting

I thought Guests have to do that right now already?
But it doesn't help. These spammers aren't spam bots, they are probably real people.

And it's not so bad with spamming here. The recently added 3 moderators do their job well.

Post by **jiri** » Wed May 03, 2006 6:14 am

Fyi, 'visual confirmation' for posting by guest users is already enabled and it helps a lot. We would have to disable guest posting without this, otherwise the forum would be full of spam.

Jiri

Big_Berny · Post by **Big_Berny** » Wed May 03, 2006 9:12 am

Ou, I didn't saw that because I'm always logged in since months...

Board question

Board question

Spammers