What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

annoying forum feature

I have noticed this recently..new feature or a bug?

you reply to a message..
after posting, you want to reply to another message in the same thread..
but no one but you has posted yet..
it adds your new reply into your previous post!
like this:

first post,,blah blah blah..

---------- Post added at 04:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:25 PM ----------

second post,,which should be a new post..but gets added onto the other one!
so that both replys are in one post..


I dont like that..
I would prefer to have two seperate posts..because they are different replys..

can this be fixed?
thanks,
Scot
 
the function seems to have an interval, the posts won't conglomerate after a day or so in between each post
 
meh, I don't really care about it that much... I just don't really like how on chat you have to wait 10 seconds before saying something again, anyyywayyyy......
 
No bug, it's suppose to be like that, if you'd like to reply to different people you can do so by inserting:
username said:
insert quote [ /QUOTE]
and post your reply

Just dont add the spaces in there. The combining of replies is just to save space. I personally like this feature, saves the hassle of scrolling down when all can be said at once.
 
hmm..ok..not a big deal I guess..
but if you are replying to two different people, and both replys are in the same "block"..
then if someone wants to reply (and quote) only *one* of your two replys..they then get the whole message in one big quote block..which is messy..

I just dont see the point.."saving space"? do we really need to save space? ;)
I would just prefer to be able to control my replys..

but if its not a problem for anyone else, I guess I can live with it! ;)

Scot
 
Ahh yes, I see what you are saying. I have done this before and sometimes you really only need to select a certain phrase from the block or a paragraph from the block. I've resorted to deleting the unnecessary pieces to suite my response. Pyro and a few others use this quite a bit when responding to multiple points in a single block.
This way you are able to address each point one at a time.
No worries though, we all have our own preferences :)
 
Well, there's a reason you can trim down quotes to just what you want to reply to. Don't blame the software - some people just don't give thought to readability. Even if you put in measures to "fix" people's input, they'll eventually find a way to foul it up.
As for the combined posts, I'd wondered about that for a while now. If I were to guess, I'd say it probably saves space and processing time on the server. In most setups like this, it's faster to read a single data record that's really long than a really long series of short items.
~Joe
 
I prefer it to multiple posts, because then your signatures on the bottom wont take up as much space.
 
Ah mine is like that I just noticed it since you said something, lemme see if I can trim it down.

Edit: I think it has to do with the size of the avatar in your profile.
 
  • #10
Yeah, I just realized that after posting and removed what I said. Didn't think it was up long enough for someone to read it. lol.
 
  • #11
Why take up two posts when you can just address people by name in one?
i.e-

Scotty-
blah blah blah

Frenchy-
blah blah blah


I think that makes everything more streamlined and clean, especially when your going through large amounts of information. Two posts one after the other by one person makes a thread look messy, in my opinion.

I belong to some forums where they absolutely cannot stand double posting; sometimes to the point where you can be suspended if you do it too much. I'm not sure if it's because it takes up server space, or because it just makes unnecessary clutter.
 
  • #12
If you wish to respond to multiple posts in a thread click the "QUOTE+" button at the bottom of the individual posts you want to quote/reply to then click the "Post Reply" button. Simple and neat if you bother to edit out the redundant or irrelevant portions of the quoted messages.

Every post is stored as an individual record in a database. The more records that have to be retrieved per thread the more work the server has to do and the longer it takes.
 
  • #13
Oh, nice tip on the quote+ - I hadn't figured that one out yet. Usually I just use the normal button, fill out my first response, copy the whole composition and go back to use the quote button again on a different message. It sounds onerous, but I'm good with keyboard shortcuts so it's actually pretty quick.
Somehow, I wouldn't be surprised if modern forums use a generous amount of caching and preflighting to cut lag. They certainly handle enough demand in most applications to justify it - this is just about the only forum I use regularly that doesn't drop connections or die outright on a weekly basis.
~Joe
 
  • #14
Oh, nice tip on the quote+ - I hadn't figured that one out yet. Usually I just use the normal button, fill out my first response, copy the whole composition and go back to use the quote button again on a different message. It sounds onerous, but I'm good with keyboard shortcuts so it's actually pretty quick.
Somehow, I wouldn't be surprised if modern forums use a generous amount of caching and preflighting to cut lag. They certainly handle enough demand in most applications to justify it - this is just about the only forum I use regularly that doesn't drop connections or die outright on a weekly basis.
~Joe

Yes, "Quote +" is dynamite. I'm visit another forum dedicated to mafia games that use proboards are something like that and it is terrible, especially considering the function of the forum revolves around talking about multiple quotes. Using vBulletin is so easy I almost don't join forums that I want to participate in if they use anything other than vBulletin.

xvart.
 
  • #15
I have noticed this recently..new feature or a bug?

you reply to a message..
after posting, you want to reply to another message in the same thread..
but no one but you has posted yet..
it adds your new reply into your previous post!
like this:

first post,,blah blah blah..

---------- Post added at 04:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:25 PM ----------

second post,,which should be a new post..but gets added onto the other one!
so that both replys are in one post..


I dont like that..
I would prefer to have two seperate posts..because they are different replys..

can this be fixed?
thanks,
Scot

There was just simply no reason to have 2 replies by the same person side by side. using the Quote+ (as talked about above) is all you need to address separate people. There is a time out in which a later post (say a new though later on) would be made into its own post... But what's the use of 4 posts made in a row each having their own box? I can't think of any.

the function seems to have an interval, the posts won't conglomerate after a day or so in between each post

Yes it does, currently that is 12 hrs.

meh, I don't really care about it that much... I just don't really like how on chat you have to wait 10 seconds before saying something again, anyyywayyyy......

Again, no reason to be able to send chat after chat after chat. If you take the time to write out a shout, by the time you need to respond to the next person and write out that chat the time limit will be up. I think I've hit the little warning thing once since I've turned it on. I am however going to make the suggestion that if you get the warning, what you've typed in doesn't go away and you just have to resubmit it... I don't know if that is possible for the coder or even something he'll consider although.

If you wish to respond to multiple posts in a thread click the "QUOTE+" button at the bottom of the individual posts you want to quote/reply to then click the "Post Reply" button. Simple and neat if you bother to edit out the redundant or irrelevant portions of the quoted messages.

Every post is stored as an individual record in a database. The more records that have to be retrieved per thread the more work the server has to do and the longer it takes.

Exactly, quote+ is exactly for that. If you look at this post, or like someone pointed out one of Travis's post, I think they are very clear on who you are talking to.

<clip>- this is just about the only forum I use regularly that doesn't drop connections or die outright on a weekly basis.
~Joe

There are a few things that help this. First I run a dedicated server- it is much more expensive than some shared server but I have much more control over it (admin rights) and don't have to worry what someone else is doing over "there" that will affect our performance. Second, things like the feature being discussed here (and the chatbox send limit mentioned as well) that help keep demand on the server down. It takes a lot of work to keep a server up and running smoothly and efficiently. But I like to think I do pretty good at it ;) Hopefully trying out the Quote+ feature will help you achieve what it is you're going after.

Andrew
 
  • #16
Another big factor is that we have about 1/10 to 1/20 the number of users as most of the other forums I frequent, and our traffic is much more evenly distributed. News and media discussion forums are the worst, because everybody gets on at the same time right after a certain TV program airs or whatever.
As for the delay on the chat program, from what I know about web development that might require some awkward auto-reloading behavior with the way our chatbox appears to be implemented. You might suggest that instead of the error occurring after the second message has been sent, the "Send" button should be disabled for ten seconds after being clicked. That way, you wouldn't have to put text back into the input field, as it would never have a chance to leave before the time limit runs out.
~Joe
 
  • #17
Maybe that is true. But if anyone can recall this forum too had it's times on the old server. Not only the well known outage during the end of the NASC auction, but also some random outages. Big forum, little forum, busy forum, slow forum... The base of it all is a good server IMHO. And how can you be sure your server will be there for you when you have no idea who else you are sharing with? ??? That's my view anyway LOL

Let me show you the RAM and CPU difference between the old server and the new one just for fun. These all show a 1 week period. And yes, the last server was a dedicated server as well.. More ram, and faster processor on the new one provide more open resources- a well worth it investment I think. I still need to move the gallery over though, it is still running on the old server :-\ But it's quite a process to move all the images and everything so I've not yet had time to do that.

edit: I'm not saying more traffic has nothing to do with it. But I am saying just because I'm not as busy as them, does not mean I don't put in the effort to keep it running. The largest difference between this server, and one for a forum with 10 or 20 times the traffic would be more MB transfer. But not a ton more load on the ram and processor. Even at the end of this year's auction... we were well below the old server's "normal" usage.


edit edit:
And just for fun... I figured I'd share some visitor stats. We all get consumed with looking at the current active users list- but we never really realize how many people pass through this forum every day looking for the information they need without becoming a member.

Lets take a look at last week (oct. 18th - oct. 24th) there were:
-214456 page views (total pages viewed)
-20764 unique visits (meaning different people)

Other cool info:
2nd most visitors come from yahoo, double that in first place is google. Nepenthes around the house is 3rd!! (referring 44 people in that week)

USA is the #1 country visiting. Second is Australia and thrid is Singapore followed by Sweden, Brazil, then Canada. (Germany, Malaysia, Finland....)

Most people connecting here use Cox for their internet at twice the number of visitors than Comcast. Third is roadrunner.

This shouldn't be a surprise.. but most visitors use Windows (10x more than #2). Next is Mac and then Linux.

The majority of visitors are using Windows XP just under than is Vista, and then MacOs. Followed by Linux, windows 2000, windows 98, windows 95, windows ce, windows NT.

The most common browser used here is Mozilla (woot firefox!) then IE (uhm, upgrade guys ;) ) followed by Safari, Netscape, Opera and WAP Mobile.

Top poster is jimscott
most replied to thread is a locked topic from 2004 about evolution
Most viewed topic is MEMBER PHOTOS! Let us see you!

"Fun Facts" :-))
 
Last edited:
  • #18
LOL - I have no idea what those graphs mean without labels on the axes.
I think a big part of the server load may have to do with the CPU bus and network interface. It would certainly explain why my other regular forum still crashes frequently despite repeated costly RAM upgrades and additional hard drives. Forums are conceptually very simple programs; they don't really do much in the way of actual computation. (Unless you count fetching database records off the hard drive. Searches are probably the most expensive in terms of CPU time, but there appears to be a search cache on this server at least for the "New Posts" list.) The most critical performance issue is leveraging simultaneous requests from multiple users. Several forums I'm on are actually distributed across multiple physically distinct servers for this reason, and there's a fairly sophisticated method used to keep them all in sync with one another.
~Joe

PS - That's really interesting that nepsaroundthehouse is the #3 referrer... especially given he has his own subforum on a fairly active Nep site.
 
  • #19
Well, there is a week time frame left to right. bottom to top of the CPU load is 0 to 100% and RAM is 0-400mb on the old and 0-800mb on the new.

I don't know all of the exacts of what a forum does software wise, I am not a programmer :p... But from the pages and pages and pages of options available in this software, it would seem to me that there is a lot that goes into each click that the software checks, modifies, and returns.

nepenthesaroundthehouse is probably just from his links page :) (always appriciated ;) ) 3rd spot always changes, it has been quite a few individual's websites over time. Bobz's photo finder is on there quite often pointing to photo posts.
 
  • #20
Well, with all the features and options available, the code certainly isn't simple. But forums typically conform to a very basic design that's an embellishment on a classic database. Most programs that you use day-to-day are much more complicated conceptually, even if they aren't necessarily as big or convoluted.
There's a (statistically verifiable) saying in computer programming; "90% of the time is spent in 10% of the code." Even if a program looks super complicated inside, most of the things that it does to get the work done are simple operations that repeat a lot.
~Joe
 
Back
Top