Measures to handle forum size need to be taken

Nobody's thinking you're insulting, Reyn, we're glad to have you at hand.

0 Replies

No, no, Reyn. Your suggestion was emphatically not taken as an insult. Just an unfortunate turn of phrase on my part.

PS -- I've started trying to not use "quick reply" as per ehBeth's suggestion. But it's a habit that's hard to break.

0 Replies

That's good! I'd hate to think that I've upset anyone with my comments.

timberlandko wrote:

A thought - another forum I frequent ran into database size problems a few years back. A solution that seems to have worked was archivin' all threads which received no replies over the past 12 months. The threads are still available - by followin' a separate link to the archive - for readin' and reference, they just can't be replied to or searched from the current general forum, and I believe they aren't on the forum's main server. Dunno if that'd be practical - prolly lotsa hassle to set up at first, but mebbe easy enough - if a little labor-intensive - to maintain once in place.

So, this archiving of older posts....is this a doable way of handling the space problem that the board is experiencing? How does this work?

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

nonono

don't use the quick reply - it's one of the bad things for space use (isn't that why it has to go?)

I doubt it's bad in any technical use. Craven is thinking it will reduce frivolous posts like this, if I understand it right.

0 Replies

I'm a little fuzzy on this, but wasn't there a feature on Abuzz where the creator of the thread could call the thread, "answered", thus ending any more activity on that thread? If so, then the thread could be archived for posterity.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

If so, then the thread could be archived for posterity.

Sorry, if I'm a little thick on this archiving business. Can someone please explain how archiving saves space? Does the info go on a different server?

http://www.anchoredbygrace.com/smileys/nixweiss.gif

0 Replies

That was an Abuzz option, but before my time, meaning before somewhere in 2000

0 Replies

Yeh, Phoenix, I remember that option on the early Abuzz, before the dweat big changeover. The person who had started a thread, could lock it oneself and it was archived automatically.

Reyne, in non-technical terms the way archiving works is that no more posts can be added to a thread, but the thread can still be viewed in its entirety by anyone who wishes to look it up.

0 Replies

I remember the "answered" in Abuzz had no practical sense as posters could post any time after the question was coined "answered."
But here the option of "answered" followed by archiving could be a possible alternative of choice.

0 Replies

Did a little more diggin, Reyn - on that other forum, the archived posts are on a separate server, and must be reached via a link ... its actually a sister site to the forum ... accessible only by registered forum members, BTW. The archive is fully searchable from within the archive, and an archived post can be linked to in the active forum, but the archives are not searchable from the active forum, and once in the archive, a thread can receive no more replies.

0 Replies

Ah, thanks, I see! I kinda guessed it would have to be something like that. Sounds like that idea would work grandly for A2K?

0 Replies

All the steps Craven outlines are excellent and most members will not even miss them at all. Here's another suggestion to consider: will it help to reduce page loads? This can be done by several means. Another bandwidth-saver is to discontinue showing who is online at present and viewing what forum. Perhaps that is already addressed and I don't know it. The archives could also be zipped into teensy files and accessible but not covenient - but hey, would it save space or what!

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

ehBeth mentioned at some point that she usues Google to do A2K searches -- I have done that a few times and does seem to work pretty well. (I use "search" a LOT.)

I'm another one who uses "search" a tremendous deal. There's a lot of posts on here that are kinda small pieces of research, that I go back to if I want to look up or write something new about the same topic. I do it to refer to what I remember other people wrote as well.

In short: what I use intensely about the "search" (searching for posts, hardly ever topics) is the combination of searching for keywords in posts by a specific member (for example, myself). Using Google is no alternative at all, there.

On the other hand, I would never notice if the the New Topics feature, Viewing who is online, or Test forum would disappear - none of that dont mean a thing to me. And though I occasionally use Quick Reply, I wouldnt miss it. Edit I do a LOT, but thats more a question of vanity and me being so anal. As long as the Preview function would stay, I would miss Edit, but - yah. Things come and they go.

But if searching for posts, and specifically by member, would disappear that would take a lot of the functionality out of the site for me - I mean, out of the serious side of the site, anyway (for fun threads it doesnt matter much).

0 Replies

And in the spirit of what other posters already said, I'd donate to keep "search" ... and of course, if ever keeping old threads accessible, period, would be in danger.

0 Replies

Quote:

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,310 for kickycan + women.

link

a little fine-tuning on that google search and i think we'll know more than we ever imagined Very Happy

seriously, nimh. i often find a google search much faster than a standard a2k search - in terms of finding a specific post i'm trying to track down.

0 Replies

I dunno eBeth.

Eg, I remember finding a comparison of the annual budget of the UN (incl unicef, peacekeeping operations, everything) with that of the NYPD. With A2K search, I can look for "un budget peacekeeping unicef" by "nimh" and there it is, first post.

A Google search for "un budget peacekeeping unicef nimh site: able2know.com" meanwhile gets me two A2K threads, but neither with the data I'm looking for.

A Google search for "un budget "new york" nimh site: able2know.com" finds me a post by Walter that compares the UN budget with that of the City of New York, overall, but again, not the data I'm looking for.

No, I'm pretty happy with search!

Oops ... used EDIT again. Its instinctive, I'm tellin ya! Very Happy

0 Replies

I did a Google Image search on "kickycan" and this is what it returned (already posted somewhere on A2K).

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0VgD*Av0ZTmtGNVsUis8ooZ2kABc6OJ4D9d7sQtbJZmlE27E5Z9qbIy4s91TgW82U8pgjNy54uuSfiG8WCpynUUH8GQ0D1oqa6jZL3masu43VFgViDSxWVTWR8rLOK!cg/Go-Go%20boy%20osama.jpg

0 Replies

Re: Measures to handle forum size need to be taken

Craven de Kere wrote:

2) Eliminating or reducing the ability to edit posts. The editing of posts takes a long time because it is running some very load intensive queries on the wordmatch table (the data table that tracks words for the search feature).

Because of this the edit feature may be restricted by time (e.g. only editable within x minutes of the post) or turned off entirely (possibly temporary, untill a more fundamental rewrite can address it).

Editing now is only available until someone replies to the post. This is similar to the way deleting posts works. In addition to reducing the database intensive edits to the forum it is has similar benefits to the limitation on deleting in that it disallows malicious use of the feature (making subsequent postings look foolish, deleting all of someone's posts if their password is obtained, etc).

Editing is database intensive because phpbb's search system uses a database of word matches that needs to be altered when the words in a post is altered. This table is a database bottleneck and the reduction of edits should help the site avoid the sluggishness of server load.

0 Replies

Thanks, Craven.

(So I really should consider to use the spellcheck and to re-read my responses before posting :wink: )

0 Replies

ditto.

0 Replies

Measures to handle forum size need to be taken

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know