Thread Cap in JCC

if snowboards are going down the tubes, what will happen to the JC? will it go back to using the UBB?

 

The JC will switch systems, and become the largest ezBoard ever.

 

But we're sure as hell not paying for CSC, so it'll be pop-ups galore!

 

Im really mean it guys.. what will happen?

 

I'll get out a little more often.

I still don't understand the rational behind this, farraday says the threads will be locked and will sink down the list to dissappear in 6-8 months. DDH says Snowboard wants server space freed up now or soon we'll end up finding a bunch of stuff pruned with no warning.

Someone who knows what the hell is going on, or someone with a reassuring BS story should really post in this thread soon.

 

"The JC will switch systems, and become the largest ezBoard ever."



...that would be scary...

 

this thread topic is decieving, i thought you were going to cap the actual number of threads in Community........since it is not, i would like to assert my ownership of that idea, if you wish to cite it, please do so, just make sure you do it properly...plagarism is a wicked, wicked thing

 

When this board is no longer able to serve the purposes of the JC, it will be moved, just like it was when UBB failed to serve the purposes of the JC.

 

When this board is no longer able to serve the purposes of the JC, it will be moved.

Any idea on what it may be moved to?

 

This board can't service the needs of the JC now, isn't that the whole point to freeing up server space?

 

I understand the need to free up server space...

I'm just glad I'm not a mod or admin.

 

maybe a Ikonboard would do? I mean if snowbaurds quits our needs..

 

There are 2-3 reasonable solutions that doesn't have to do with Snowboards, and we know them. Please, save everyone the time and effort and don't make suggestions.

 

eh.. sorry -_-

 

What the hell? Preacherboy showed up and I didn't get my reassuring BS story? That's it, this forum just doesn't function without him as a mod.

 

I think 5k is reasonable to cap threads at, since there are only a few that have garnered that much. Other boards have a hundred posty limit, so I think 5k is an excellent compromise. It would be nice if a member would archive these large threads, so it's not lost, and the link pasted into the first posty of the continuing thread.

Since I don't know how to archive, I have already copied/pasted my favorite locked thread, page by page, to a word doc with html, all 61 pages, since it will fall off the edge one of these days.

 

So we want to free up server space, and do so soon. Having these few threads deleted in six months would do nothing to accomplish that goal. What's the point?

Also, did we ever find out exactly why those threads in the TPM forum were pruned?

 

so this is just for the JCC then? I'm assuming that's were most of the threads are anyway.

 

JGM just offered to archive threads. click here

 

Like usual, waiting for an answer.

 

go over there to the JCC archive thread, and ask JGM to archive your favorite locked large thread.

Here's JGM's current archive list so far. click here

 

I've got 2 kwestyuns:

First, from all this I get the impression that the JC boards are on a different server than TFN pages. I'm not a technical-computer-web-person. Am I right or am I right?

Second, how can anybody not like PreacherBoy? He makes me laugh even when my nostrils are dry and I sneeze blood!

Oh yeah, and is anybody saving the Chill Mike D threads? Or should I? 'Cause I'd hate to lose those.

 

How about instead of all the good big threads you just delete all the crap little threads under say... 50-100 posts... It obviously didn't generate enough interest to warrant it's survival... and there's a lot more crap than good threads to exfoliate.

 

Im with Gundark with this one..

 

I wouldn't mind this policy if there were actually an easy way to archive large threads. Unfortunately there just isn't. The only way we're going to be able to save the Sanctuary thread is by upping our display settings to 50 messages per thread, but still having to click through some 260 pages and saving. Rather painstaking. One could argue we could just save the pages we want, but with that many pages it's just as tedious to wade through to determine the pages we want to save.

5000 posts seems ridiculously high because of this problem. That's still 100 pages. If this issue is really going to be enforced, then my suggestion is to have someone run a query on the database to find out how many (not locked) threads there are above 5000, above 2000, and above 1000. I bet there aren't significantly more threads above 1000 -- which is only 20 pages. (2000 is 40 pages, which wouldn't be too tedious to archive either)

And if this is about saving server space -- something which, owning a web server of my own, I can completely relate to -- I have to agree with gundark. There are probably hundreds of crappy short (20-100 posts) threads out past page 30 that nobody will ever reply to again. Perhaps it's time to rethink the pruning rules.

Many threads in the JCC are started with the intention of a relatively short lifetime (days to weeks). If someone out there wants to save them once they've outlived their usefulness, they can do so rather easily. These large threads that are being targetted have a lifetime proportional to the online friendships they create. So I have to ask, if the JC Community forum isn't about building friendships between its posters, then what is it about?