Is anyone else annoyed by the structure of these boards?

  • Tiran

    Posts: 227

    Jan 25, 2009 7:19 AM GMT
    I enjoy the forums, but I find the endlessly long threads to be very annoying, and a turn off in terms of reading. Does anyone know why these forums don't break threads in to shorter more managable pages like most online forums I have seen?
    I couldn't find a better section than this one. Sorry.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 7:25 AM GMT
    most online forums are built over some CMS, i guess this forum its part of a very old CMS or its just a system created for other site and the admin has re-used it for this specific website. Being that said, im with you, I am 100% sure it doesnt involve too much to create a mysql query limiting the amount of posts per thread. This will also translate in less overhead for the database since you'll be just loading 30 posts per thread for instance and if you dont like the topic you just leave the forum and thats it. So if we talk about performance and taking into account all those pictures we post everytime on here then yes I think the webmaster should change the code and again its not big deal, if he doesnt know how to do it quick then just send me the files ill do it my self and send it back to them Jesus.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 7:51 AM GMT
    Yeah, the forum setup is kinda weird. The lack of page breaks is my number one annoyance. The other thing I don't like is the quote function. With other forum software, when you quote someone, your reply only includes the comments of the person you're directly quoting. But here, it quotes the person your quoting as well the other person they quoted previously. And add to the fact that most guys don't trim quotes around here, and the lack of page breaks, it makes reading some threads very tedious.

    Alright, I'm done ranting. I'm gonna go start a new thread about doing something to the guy above you. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 8:29 AM GMT
    no, I don't have a problem with it, I find pages irritating, extra loading and shit..

    It places a higher demand on the server because you will constantly be requestion pages of data instead of getting it all at once..

    the most taxing part of accessing a mySQL database is to make the connection, once you have connected sending queries and retrieving data is far less, so the less connections you can make to a database the better..

    Most websites are CMS (Content Management systems) systems built over a forum (ie, vbulletin) and I believe that realjock is a custom job created by the owner/developer/s and I'm sure they have more important things to do then create a page navigation system..

    Besides, you get used to it eventually.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 10:59 AM GMT
    lilTanker saidno, I don't have a problem with it, I find pages irritating, extra loading and shit..

    1-It places a higher demand on the server because you will constantly be requestion pages of data instead of getting it all at once..

    2-the most taxing part of accessing a mySQL database is to make the connection, once you have connected sending queries and retrieving data is far less, so the less connections you can make to a database the better..

    3-Most websites are CMS (Content Management systems) systems built over a forum (ie, vbulletin) and I believe that realjock is a custom job created by the owner/developer/s and I'm sure they have more important things to do then create a page navigation system..



    1- wrong. Most of the time the users visit a thread they just care about the last 5-10 posts. Why? simple..they already read the first 1234 posts that came before, just the new visitors might be interested in reading the whole thing(not even) but again, 95% of the users coming to the thread they already came before and just want to check who answered to their posts meaning the most recent ones.

    2- if you compare the work of retrieving all the posts from a thread(1 connection) lets say about 700 responses linked to about 30-50 users everytime with the work of reducing the amount of data being sent from the server to the user lets say 20 or 30 posts per page linked to 5-10 users, taking into account what i just mentioned in the first argument that basically just a 5% of the users will try to go through the whole thread then YES it definitely does make a difference in performance, actually its a huge difference.

    Also not just for the server but for the user trying to download the page, some pages can go really long holding more than 50 pictures linked to the internet, meaning you just dont relay on RJ server's performance but that one from any other site those images has been linked from, slowing down the whole connection and creating annoying jumps in the user agent making the thread really difficult to read when you first open it.

    Im sure youve seen those threads repeated as "Thread Title Second/Third Part cause the previous one was getting too long already".

    3- Basically any website with a login-system, a root able to assign roles to the users and a system to publish and edit information is considered to be a content management system. Ive seen most of the application implemented on this website in some dating website called www.plentyoffish.com, thats why i think the admin might be using some CMS built by someone else or he just re-used some code from his own previous work on other sites.

    Websites are made for the user and to meet their expectations, websites evolve everyday, since theres so much coming up every second about new web-technologies. The webmaster's capacity to keep up with the feedback from the users is what helps a website of this category to grow and make it more comfortable for those it was made for: the users. Now Liltanker, you really want to help and make a point or you are going to continue arguing.

    I think this is something simple that can be made easily, just one little step to help this site to be more user friendly. But overall this site is great, but nothing is perfect and we are here to give that feedback anytime.

    charlitos
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 11:50 AM GMT
    charlitos said1- wrong. Most of the time the users visit a thread they just care about the last 5-10 posts. Why? simple..they already read the first 1234 posts that came before, just the new visitors might be interested in reading the whole thing(not even) but again, 95% of the users coming to the thread they already came before and just want to check who answered to their posts meaning the most recent ones.

    I never disputed that, I simply said I liked the way it was...

    charlitos said2- if you compare the work of retrieving all the posts from a thread(1 connection) lets say about 700 responses linked to about 30-50 users everytime with the work of reducing the amount of data being sent from the server to the user lets say 20 or 30 posts per page linked to 5-10 users, taking into account what i just mentioned in the first argument that basically just a 5% of the users will try to go through the whole thread then YES it definitely does make a difference in performance, actually its a huge difference.

    it takes not much more processing power between getting 20 posts and getting a hundred posts, once you have made that initial connection dumping data is the easiest part and its the same for most modern database's except for a few more specilised applications available (RIS in the medical field comes to mind which deals with images and other media) and in terms of performance values, one massive dump is more processor efficient then many connections pulling a little bit at a time, imagine filling a bucket with water, you can turn it on full ball or you can rapidly turn it off and on, you'll eventually fill the bucket but the later will take more work.

    On this argument however, in smaller applications and with correct SQL configurations you can considerably reduce the amount of power needed, namely with a properly setup cache, large amounts of ram, efficient coding practices and a well maintained database, however, I get the feeling the owner/developer doesn't have the resources to go all out and might be running this as bare as possible while maintaining good service for its users..

    charlitos saidAlso not just for the server but for the user trying to download the page, some pages can go really long holding more than 50 pictures linked to the internet, meaning you just dont relay on RJ server's performance but that one from any other site those images has been linked from, slowing down the whole connection and creating annoying jumps in the user agent making the thread really difficult to read when you first open it.

    other peoples servers are beyond the scope of RJ and its owner/developer, besides, if you are a properly configured browser and have visited the thread before, all images will have been placed into the browsers cache, meaning none/minimal requests to the server

    charlitos said3- Basically any website with a login-system, a root able to assign roles to the users and a system to publish and edit information is considered to be a content management system. Ive seen most of the application implemented on this website in some dating website called www.plentyoffish.com, thats why i think the admin might be using some CMS built by someone else or he just re-used some code from his own previous work on other sites.

    agree'd, I wasn't disputing what a CMS was, however, a lot of content management systems are built on the back of prebuilt forums, leveraging the available and prebuilt technologies already built into most forums

    charlitos saidWebsites are made for the user and to meet their expectations, websites evolve everyday, since theres so much coming up every second about new web-technologies. The webmaster's capacity to keep up with the feedback from the users is what helps a website of this category to grow and make it more comfortable for those it was made for: the users. Now Liltanker, you really want to help and make a point or you are going to continue arguing.

    Agreed, to a point, this website belongs to its owner, he can do as he see's fit, I'm sure he's intelligent enough to work out what will be best for them and what resources he has available, if I where arguing, you'd know it, I simply disagree'd with you, I have considerable experience in this area, so I have a unique understanding/perspective on how this all works, my intention is not to argue but to point out there is more to it.

    charlitos saidI think this is something simple that can be made easily, just one little step to help this site to be more user friendly. But overall this site is great, but nothing is perfect and we are here to give that feedback anytime.

    it would make things easier for you, however, the increased server load (and not just from database access) would have to be accounted for, its not that "easy" especially on a large site with many users, plus, it comes down to the owner/developer.. if they see worth in implementing that.

    I for one, appreciate the forum the way it is, I like the entire thread being displayed all at once, I hate page loads, they are tiresome and slow me down having to wait for another page to load..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 12:09 PM GMT
    I love it when guys talk technical.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 1:43 PM GMT
    it takes not much more processing power between getting 20 posts and getting a hundred posts, once you have made that initial connection dumping data is the easiest part and its the same for most modern database's except for a few more specilised applications available (RIS in the medical field comes to mind which deals with images and other media) and in terms of performance values, one massive dump is more processor efficient then many connections pulling a little bit at a time, imagine filling a bucket with water, you can turn it on full ball or you can rapidly turn it off and on, you'll eventually fill the bucket but the later will take more work.


    I think I already mentioned the chances of a user reading the whole thread...which means than that mysql_connect will not happen as often as you describe it. Secondly most of the longest threads in here and the ones getting more hits are "the guy above you whatsoever".... who reads the whole thread?... no one icon_idea.gif

    Imagine filling a bucket of water you have to carry to your neighbor's house, you can just fill it all up and then carry it to the right location, then you realize your neighbor just needed 1/20 of the water youre carrying and you could have just used a glass instead.


    On this argument however, in smaller applications and with correct SQL configurations you can considerably reduce the amount of power needed, namely with a properly setup cache, large amounts of ram, efficient coding practices and a well maintained database, however, I get the feeling the owner/developer doesn't have the resources to go all out and might be running this as bare as possible while maintaining good service for its users..


    read answer above and theres other answer to this at the end.


    other peoples servers are beyond the scope of RJ and its owner/developer, besides, if you are a properly configured browser and have visited the thread before, all images will have been placed into the browsers cache, meaning none/minimal requests to the server


    Im not really sure if you actually read what i said...I think it was pretty clear that i mentioned that other sites are beyond the scope of RJ's developer reach. I dont see where this was even questionable. Again I think you didnt read quite well what I said when I made clear that this could lead to an annoying delay for the user when you FIRST open the thread, the limited cache memory assigned by the browsers in the user's computer to keep some files temporally was left out of the question by that little part of my sentence. Being that said, you dont have an answer to what i just posted, its true that it slows down the user's connection when he first opens the thread and thats just annoying.


    agree'd, I wasn't disputing what a CMS was, however, a lot of content management systems are built on the back of prebuilt forums, leveraging the available and prebuilt technologies already built into most forums


    I wasnt disputing anything either, I was just giving some info before to make my point. I also mentioned the fact that the admin could have just re-used some code from any other projects, nowadays there are just a few developers that might waste their time building a forum application from scratch. I never actually argued about this, so Im not really sure where you were heading to in that paragraph.


    Agreed, to a point, this website belongs to its owner, he can do as he see's fit, I'm sure he's intelligent enough to work out what will be best for them and what resources he has available, if I where arguing, you'd know it, I simply disagree'd with you, I have considerable experience in this area, so I have a unique understanding/perspective on how this all works, my intention is not to argue but to point out there is more to it.

    it would make things easier for you, however, the increased server load (and not just from database access) would have to be accounted for, its not that "easy" especially on a large site with many users, plus, it comes down to the owner/developer.. if they see worth in implementing that.


    I used to run a website using vBulletin as a forum. It was a project I started with my best friend, we had this shitty server and we were basically getting support from advertising. It was a website with tutorials to learn computer programming and design from any level. We had over 2000 users online all the time posting/reading tutorials and going to the forum getting all geeky, the database was just infinite and guess what? That forum was vBulletin I was also using a kinda heavy framework back then which was CodeIgniter with a Model View Controller implementation, and all this with a shitty server was working just fine. We had to shut down the project but we kept the database so we could get the website back at some point.

    My point is...please those tags will not make this website run any slower.


    I for one, appreciate the forum the way it is, I like the entire thread being displayed all at once, I hate page loads, they are tiresome and slow me down having to wait for another page to load..


    no you never appreciated the forum the way it is, you just said you "got used to it".

    You also missed the part where I mentioned that when the threads just get too long the users posts a second thread to continue that one, sometimes both threads remain active for a time leading to a duplicate connection to follow the same topic, which as you just stated doesnt make it any easier to the server.

    Ive been developing websites since I was 15 years old, and I work part time as web-master while I finish my degree in computer science. Im sure you do have more experience than me, but dude, seriously this will not make any bad to this site but the opposite. The forum will look more structured and clean and thats the way it is almost everywhere they put up a forum for god's sake.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 1:51 PM GMT
    Tiran saidI enjoy the forums, but I find the endlessly long threads to be very annoying, and a turn off in terms of reading. Does anyone know why these forums don't break threads in to shorter more managable pages like most online forums I have seen?
    I couldn't find a better section than this one. Sorry.

    Why are shorter pages more managable?

    I much prefer the current design. I like having all the posts for a thread available at one time, rather than having to go back and forth between pages. Also, I can search a whole thread this way and not have to repeat the search page after page.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 2:17 PM GMT
    Yes, I have considerably more experience then you.. your website with vbulletin, wouldn't have handled 2000 active users accessing the website as a group, vbulletin has only in the last two years reached the point where it can handle that sort of load (2000 active users at any one point) however, I've seen and worked on the hardware that's required to maintain forum like that and if your hardware really was as "shitty" as you say, they weren't using the forum or any forum backend..

    I've worked on sites that have had 400 thousand concurrent users all active, making 28 thousand database queries a second (minimum 24/7) for massive amounts of media, I've personally managed some of the multi-sited clustered servers and this is just backend stuff for private users, let alone the billions of people accessing the site every ten minutes..

    When you have a mission critical application that not only do its job time and again without fualt, with limited resources, you find any lax coding standards are unacceptable in any form.

    You can go a long way to minimize resource usage with a database, but, you can't reduce it to nothing, you can get a litle data or a lot, the different between to two after the connection is negligible.

    as a reference, I used to have a test, you'd access 2gig worth of data and 200mbs and monitor resource usage, after the 42% spike (this server would be the equivalent of say a top of the like mac pro with everything you can put into it) to access the 200mb file, it would be 16%, to access the 2gig file would be 19%, which in terms of resource use, very small in comparison to setting up and establishing a connection, you also have the http request for every single image, css, jsp file and everything else, you also have the PHP creating the file to send, working through conditions, setting cookies...

    The popularity of this site and the (or what I assume) resources on this site, the owner would need to be mindful of where things go.

    and I do appreciate the forum as it is, if you'd read it properly, you'd have seen I said "you get used to it" I always found the forum on here really nice to use, its simple, not bloated with "features", easy to navigate and not stuffed with "pretty" images...

    Besides, you wanna talk about usability, you need to take a look around the rest of the site, there are bigger areas that need attention before multi-paging a forum to apparently "make it easier"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 2:21 PM GMT
    lilTanker saidYes, I have considerably more experience then you.. your website with vbulletin, wouldn't have handled 2000 active users accessing the website as a group, vbulletin has only in the last two years reached the point where it can handle that sort of load (2000 active users at any one point) however, I've seen and worked on the hardware that's required to maintain forum like that and if your hardware really was as "shitty" as you say, they weren't using the forum or any forum backend..

    I've worked on sites that have had 400 thousand concurrent users all active, making 28 thousand database queries a second (minimum 24/7) for massive amounts of media, I've personally managed some of the multi-sited clustered servers and this is just backend stuff for private users, let alone the billions of people accessing the site every ten minutes..

    When you have a mission critical application that not only do its job time and again without fualt, with limited resources, you find any lax coding standards are unacceptable in any form.

    You can go a long way to minimize resource usage with a database, but, you can't reduce it to nothing, you can get a litle data or a lot, the different between to two after the connection is negligible.

    as a reference, I used to have a test, you'd access 2gig worth of data and 200mbs and monitor resource usage, after the 42% spike (this server would be the equivalent of say a top of the like mac pro with everything you can put into it) to access the 200mb file, it would be 16%, to access the 2gig file would be 19%, which in terms of resource use, very small in comparison to setting up and establishing a connection, you also have the http request for every single image, css, jsp file and everything else, you also have the PHP creating the file to send, working through conditions, setting cookies...

    The popularity of this site and the (or what I assume) resources on this site, the owner would need to be mindful of where things go.

    and I do appreciate the forum as it is, if you'd read it properly, you'd have seen I said "you get used to it" I always found the forum on here really nice to use, its simple, not bloated with "features", easy to navigate and not stuffed with "pretty" images...

    Besides, you wanna talk about usability, you need to take a look around the rest of the site, there are bigger areas that need attention before multi-paging a forum to apparently "make it easier"

    Aint he something...pretty and smart, too ... my hero!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 4:02 PM GMT
    I only mind the non-paged thread format when there's lots of pics to load. Text-only loads virtually instantly, but dozens of bigger pics in a long thread can take a few seconds, causing the scroll point to keep changing on my Mac's browser until everything is loaded.

    But overall I'm used to the RJ format, not looking for a change. And I'll mention that I rarely continue to follow a thread when it approaches 100 posts, anyway. By then most have grown stale or silly.

    Too bad there's not a check box for control of quoting, offering the option of either citing all previous quotes, or just the last. I often clip, but there are times I do want more than the most recent quote to appear in my reply.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 4:05 PM GMT



    Charlitos, we usually read all the posts in a thread.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 4:20 PM GMT
    I like it as it is. When I was new, I was annoyed by it too, but now I realize I actually prefer it this way. I'm actually annoyed by other forums where I have to load several pages in order to get why the last posts says what it says.

    And as Red_Vespa said, I also usually stop reading threads when they get past 100 replies. The offenders to this are usually not terribly important anyhow (the 'guy above you' threads, which I refer to by their initals - GAY threads). icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 4:22 PM GMT
    Obviously you can just go 'Sort by - Newest First'

    I don't think it takes that long to load a thread.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 4:26 PM GMT
    Only thing that doesn't work for me here is the search topics function. They have the habit of coming up with completely irrelevant threads.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 4:33 PM GMT
    Sedative saidOnly thing that doesn't work for me here is the search topics function. They have the habit of coming up with completely irrelevant threads.

    Yeah, same problem for me. I suspect the search function must be looking into the thread message content, and not just at the Subject line.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 4:52 PM GMT
    Long, long threads give me iPhone thumb...you know, that fatigue from spending five minutes pedalling wildly down the screen just to read the newest comments while on your touch-screen mobile device.

    Really, I shouldn't be complaining about that, because I really shouldn't be checking on RJ threads while driving, walking, or operating equipment anyway. LOL.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 5:24 PM GMT
    LilTanker has a better basic understanding of the issues involved, in terms of real overhead and usability.

    As a user, if I want to search within the topic, it's a breeze to press ctrl-f, and search the page. I'm guessing that the google ad inserts work a lot better with the whole topic on the page. It sure makes for a bunch more coherency. It also works better with the search engine spider which can just come along and suck it up all at once, and links stay better, and so on.

    What happens so often, is that folks install a bloated OOP, e.g. CMS, when all they need is a couple of functions and they would be done. It goes beyond idiotic sometimes when folks think they have to do bloated CMS when a simple database cursor and a for loop is often all that's needed, instead of some big, bloated, 50,000 line piece of junk.

    Chris has done a pretty good job in the way that the programming works. The usability is good, even for some of the dumbest users.

    There's a search function with more functionality at the top of the forums section, FYI.

    The youthful arrogance, and inexperience, of folks like charlitos, shows through brightly. liltanker clearly is the more knowledgeable, since I'm taking sides. liltanker has a much broader understanding of data processing, in general, and speaks in a more qualified way about all the issues that come to bear.

    Granted, loading the page all at once isn't' that spiffy on a mobile device, but, long forums don't lend themselves well to those devices anyway. This site is not geared in its business model towards those devices, clearly, nor would it lend itself well to that.

    Allowing embedding of off-site objects is, of course, going to slow the page load, but, adds the value of compelling, and not so compelling, multimedia, as well.

    At the end of the day, unless you have everyone paying for use of the site, the more possible click thru links that end up on the page at any given time, the more likely there is a revenue stream. A site can't bleed money, day in, and day out, if it expects to stay online.

    I can't imagine a worse idea than throwing all the extra overhead of a bloated CMS on this. Dumb, dumb, dumb, in so many ways. Just about nothing could be a worse idea.

    One of the wonderful things about custom programming is the flexibility, and the sparseness, it provides.

    I've cleaned up CMS messes, and so has Logan, time and again. It's makes good sense, if you're a programmer, to build the stuff custom, and nice and tight, and just the the way you want it, with as many outward faces as you wish, without all the headaches of a big bloated slow piece of software that's a pain in the ass to maintain. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

    We've seen CMS systems peddled off to the folks who least need them; who least understand how to use them; and that completely ruin the look and feel of a site.

    With regard to database connections and recordset / cursor overhead, liltanker is dead on in his statements. connection management is almost always more costly than a few cycles on the CPU. Text takes little bandwidth, especially on well constructed custom code with style sheets and the like.

    Most times, the simplest solution is the best one. Almost always the real cost of ownership (and it IS about business) is lower with the simpler system.

    charlitos would do well to study up on how the guts of how I/O systems work, how recordsets / database cursors work, and how TCP/IP works (although, this database may used a named pipe), and how HTTP 1.1 works. What he'll find is that the whole SECTOR is read into memory from disk; that scanning an index has low overhead; that the real overhead is in the HTTP negotiations, and the session setups, as well as the database connection (yes, there a persistent connections sometimes). My point being is that charlitos doesn't realize how little he really knows. True wisdom is knowing that the more you learn, the more you realize how little you truly know. Clearly, charlitos did not take time to think through what he was saying, lacks experience, or didn't do the research required to consider all the factors in the user experience, and in the performance management. charlitos does not have a comprehensive understanding of all the factors that come into play in the delivery of the content.

    It's a no brainer.

    Like liltanker, I've cut my teeth on some big projects like matchmaker.com, vocalspace.com, audioacrobat.com, byoaudio.com, audioblog.com, hipcast.com, and, most recently, oneseason.com, building highly-scalable, highly-available, high-performance, 5-9s, systems for nearly 2 decades, with over 3 decades in the field. The latest thing we have been doing involves the EC2 Supercomputing Grid. I've worked for GTE/Verizon 3 times, ATT 2 times, and IBM 2 times, on large project implementation as well as startups. In November, I turned down a job as a level 4 enterprise systems admin answering to the director of internal IT at Verizon (I wish I hadn't cuz now we're struggling.) I giggle at some of the kids without a hint of humility, who are clueless about being clueless.

    The more you learn, the more you realize how little you truly know.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 6:03 PM GMT
    The back to top button at the bottom is the best feature. Another great feature is clicking the logo in the upper left page takes you to the main page.

    I can see your point if you return to a thread and trying to find the first post you haven't read yet but I think the current set up is fine.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 6:03 PM GMT
    My experience with programming has shown pre-built software, like content-management systems, framework libraries, and the like, are generally a bad idea in terms of load on the server. Clearly, realjock doesn't need the massive set of esoteric features a CMS provides (though I will admit, sticky posts would be great).

    MySQL databases sit real quiet, even if you pull 400,000 records using a massive, table-joining query. Not to mention I get sick of thumbing through all the pages on a thread just to get an idea of what's going on.

    The only noticeable load in running a 1200-response thread is on your browser as it loads the page. Even then, we're only talking mere kilobytes and a split-second of hang-time due to your browser and connection.

    It's a freakin' Linux box! It can handle a query returning more than 30 records.

    Maybe you should get a better browser icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 6:04 PM GMT
    zdrew saidLong, long threads give me iPhone thumb...you know, that fatigue from spending five minutes pedalling wildly down the screen just to read the newest comments while on your touch-screen mobile device.

    Really, I shouldn't be complaining about that, because I really shouldn't be checking on RJ threads while driving, walking, or operating equipment anyway. LOL.


    Go to 'sort by - newest first' - I only clicked on to this quite recently. It's at the top of the thread.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 9:05 PM GMT
    meninlove said


    Charlitos, we usually read all the posts in a thread.



    I know, but just once. That's what Im trying to say. I think is a matter of what the users prefer. I personally prefer to divide the thread in 25-50 posts each thread maybe, basically cause it does get uncomfortable when the pages are way too long for no reason, let alone using an iPhone.


    for lilTanker, I just woke up its kinda late and I gotta do homework, I never said the 2000 thousands users were in there forum at the same time but online publishing/editing tutorials going to the forum and so on. We were actually hosting the tutorials in a complete different server and the images we were using as well. The forum was not connected to the rest of the site(I was working on that part cause that was just a problem) meaning we had a duplicated database for the user's tutorials and other one for the forum.

    I will just say something pretty logical, you start a thread and from the moment you start it people come to read the whole thing but the thread is not that long yet, probably 30 posts only, and those first users that came to the thread might continue coming back but now the thread is way longer and they already read the last part. Sometimes threads get just way too long and you dont know how many answers you got after your response and you start scrolling up down trying to find your last post, it would be easier to memorize you posted in the second/third or the 4th page. In addition to this you can notice that every thread experiences a number of hits way higher than the number of replays, meaning that a good number of the people visiting the thread they just dont find it that attractive and leave the forum right away.

    I said you do have more experience than me but you are basically begging the question. Throwing explanations and more explanations that sound completely fine but have the problem to be irrelevant. The fact that you have more experience doesnt prove you right so far it just means you have the knowledge to apply that rule that sais "if you can't convince them, then confuse them", that's what you're doing with most of the users reading this thread.

    According to your own experience you should have some server for testing purposes, do the performance test of what we are talking about here, take into the account what I said before of the chances of a user reading the whole thread continuously which is minimum. Compare the numbers and post that data on here. That's the only thing that could prove you right, that can actually demonstrate that putting tags to the forum will substantially slowdown realjock server(seriously you gotta be kidding me).

    I think its a problem, it is a problem for an active forum like this one, where users are posting every single minute. The idea of limiting the amount of posts per thread was thought specifically for a forum like this, it wasnt thought for any other reason.

    The developers might have tons of other more important things to do, that doesn't mean that Tiran suggestion should be ignored. That doesnt mean that those little things are irrelevant. Ive noticed some people have said they like it the way it is, if so then this is the way it should be. But if most of the people think its more comfortable the other way around then the feedback is there, and that's up to the developer now to decide whether to do it or not.

    charlitos



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 9:37 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa saidI only mind the non-paged thread format when there's lots of pics to load. Text-only loads virtually instantly, but dozens of bigger pics in a long thread can take a few seconds, causing the scroll point to keep changing on my Mac's browser until everything is loaded.

    But overall I'm used to the RJ format, not looking for a change. And I'll mention that I rarely continue to follow a thread when it approaches 100 posts, anyway. By then most have grown stale or silly.

    Too bad there's not a check box for control of quoting, offering the option of either citing all previous quotes, or just the last. I often clip, but there are times I do want more than the most recent quote to appear in my reply.

    I have the same thing too and it can be grotesque waiting for all the images to load, the problem here is that the image dimensions are never in the image tag so the browser doesn't know how to immediately render the page so makes an assumption that the image is a tiny square until it finds out otherwise, at which case it changes to layout to accommodate the image..

    for realjock to fix that it would have to load the image its self to get the dimensions which would be pretty damned cool.. if you use firefox have a look at a plugin called fasterfox lite, it changes a few settings in firefox to allow more connections to servers and will load data faster, you could do the changes by hand, but its easier to just use a plugin.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2009 9:44 PM GMT
    charlitos saidI think its a problem, it is a problem for an active forum like this one, where users are posting every single minute. The idea of limiting the amount of posts per thread was thought specifically for a forum like this, it wasnt thought for any other reason.

    ya know, I disagree, I don't believe it works that way...