Thread Cap in JCC

It's not just the size of the large threads, but accessing them. You'll find that if you want to start reading from page 5 or 10 of a 5k+ thread, our server grinds and groans, and most likely will not bring it up. There's also the auto pruning by snowboards. That's what's happening, too. The Get-In-Line thread in PSA has been auto pruned from the beginning, since it is posted to daily. 95% of my total posting in this thread has fallen over the edge, as snowboards has pruned the beginnings of this long thread where my posting was. Since most of the large threads in the board comes out of the bulging JCC, it makes sense to limit thread size. Other boards limit threads to 100 posties and then close them down. JGM has graciously offered to archive them to a board. Once archived, their link can be posted into the first post of your new Part II thread, or perhaps the last day's posting of the archived thread cut/pasted into the first posty for continuity. Anyways, because of snowboards limitations on the JC, we need to figure ways to work with them, not against them as it will then work against us.

Well, it certainly hasn't gotten that bad in the Sanctuary thread, that pages don't show up. There seems to be about a 2-second delay before it shows any page, actually. If accessing large threads is also part of the issue to be resolved, I can relate to that as well. I wouldn't want potentially dozens of processor-intensive accesses per minute occurring on my server either.

You said someone is volunteering to archive these to another board? Is there some method of archiving we don't know about? Is someone seriously willing to do all that tedious work? Hey if that part of it is solved, great! You won't be hearing any arguments from me again.

As for "other boards" -- I wish people wouldn't use that argument. It has no basis for the JC. When the switch to Snowboards occurred, large threads grew right from the beginning with no word from the administration. They allowed it to happen, and I'm sure the designers of the board software knew of the potential as well. The board was designed for that purpose. You don't build an SQL-based board to accommodate an already large membership without knowing the risks.

Now, if those two reasons, server space and access time, are the issue... Again, I think it should be reduced to say 2000 posts to make the process of archiving easier. Certain threads may need to do it more often, but that's our problem to deal with. Make it a number that's round, that's not so tedious to archive, and that doesn't break this access-time issue you're talking about.


And one other thing... why in the hell was farraday chosen to make this announcement? This would have been received a lot better if it had been someone with a technical connection to the workings of the system who made the announcement. S/he'd be able to explain why it needs to be done from a technical (and financial) perspective, rather than just announcing it. It was clearly a bad decision to have a mod who not only likely doesn't know all the reasons behind it, but also, as anyone who saw his "f--- you all" thread when he purposely decided to get banned will tell you, doesn't particularly like the JC Community membership to begin with.

It seems that farraday is ignoring this issue now. Hopefully not all the mods are.

I believe that several convincing points have been raised against this idea. However, even if you do not agree with me, I would submit that for the proposal to be enacted, we need significant positive evidence that it is a good idea, not just a lack of significant evidence that it would be harmful. Now let's examine the supposed reasons for this policy:

1. With a thread cap, old posts would be pruned. Instead of a 7k thread there would be a 2k thread with 5k previous posts falling back towards eventual pruning.

This pruning would not take place for at least six months. It would do nothing to address the current server space problems. Starting a new thread would take up more space on the server than continuing the previous thread. When the threads finally are pruned, the number of threads this would affect is so small that it would make little difference anyway. So point 1, which seems to be the main one, is completely irrelevant.

2.Longer threads have more glitches. Refusing to 'up' that page error at the start of a new page. The entire problems with the early pages of the PSA social thread. Starting a new thread would generally eliminate these until the thread once again grew ungainly.

I know nothing about the PSA thread. The threads in Community, however, are still functional, even if they do have some errors. If the people posting in them don't mind these minor errors, then there's no reason to close the threads.

3. With a thread cap there might be a decresed tendency to post just to increase the size of the thread. If all threads get closed arounf 5k then congratulating yourselves for reaching 4k might not seem as a big a deal.

As far as I've seen, this is not a major issue. Also, starting a new thread would probably lead to an increased rate of posting in that thread.

4. Once a thread gets to large, it's members have a tendency to up it with posts saying things like "come on we can't let this thing die!" Obviously this is rather silly, especially once you get 10 or 12 ups like that a page. With a thread cap they might be less willing to up a thread that would just be locked anyways once it hit the cap.

In threads where this is a problem, it can be dealt with. In threads where this is not a problem, it's a complete non-issue.

There's also the issue of the threads that were pruned in TPM. I still don't think we've heard exactly how or why this happened. This needs to be figured out, if possible. Because we don't know the reason behind this, we can't use it as an important factor in policy-making

So I ask again, what is the point of this policy? There is none. Enacting it would be utterly foolish.

Is there some method of archiving we don't know about? Is someone seriously willing to do all that tedious work?

I currently archiving all of the old Dark Lords threads (over 22,000 posts! ). Anyway, I am going through, page by page, and saving each page's sorce code to my hard drive as a new html document. Once I get them all, I am going to upload them to a server and link to the pages for the Dark Lords to view. I am not sure how others are doing it, but that seemed to be the easiest way to approach the task, in my opinion.

Is it tedious? Heck yes! It is an awful job. But I keep telling myself that it will be worth it, as once I am done, I don't ever have to worry that these threads will disappear again.

If that's the only choice, JMT, that's what I'll be doing with the Sanctuary as well. Hopefully I can get some of the others to help go through them.

I think you'll be surprised how much space those pages take up in HTML format (it should take up less space in its native database format). I don't know what sort of server access you have, but if you're using the usual 5-10MB you get with an Internet dialup, DSL, or Cable account, you might fill it up surprisingly quickly with 22000 posts. I'm lucky -- I own a whole server I can throw this stuff on, if Saerah can't accommodate it on her own server space.

Also, if you're using IE5's save function, the problem it causes is it makes a separate directory for every web page's images. That means, unless you turn images off, you'll get duplicate image files for every page you save.

I'm telling you, if you want to save server space, everyone with "Darth" in their name must be deleted. It is the only way.

Thankfully I have 2 gigs of server space, Riley. But I mean, not everyone has that luxury. I'm upgrading my accounts on my domains soon...so I mean it's not a problem. I have PLENTY of bandwidth.

Listen to Riley, folks, he knows what he's talking about.

Also, if you're using IE5's save function, the problem it causes is it makes a separate directory for every web page's images.

Nah.....I am viewing the source code, copying it and pasting it into EditPlus and saving it as a new document.

And as for the webspace, I am not going to use either of my domains for this.....this is just too much stuff. I figure that I will just use several free webhosting accounts to get the job done, as I don't think these pages are going to get that much traffic, and I cannot be bother to pay for another domain just for this purpose.

So far, I've not seen one decent reply to Jeff42's arguments.

This topic may as well evolve into a discussion on how best to archive these threads.

What I'm actually doing is using IE to save them as a single HTML file ("Web Page, HTML only" under the "Save As" drop-down box), and renaming them with the same front part followed by the page number (in my case, ROTS-###.htm). Thankfully, the ASP components Snowboards built for this generate queues for each section of code: HTML comments like <!-- Start of common navigation --> and stuff like that. So I'm setting up a VBScript file that I'll be able to just run once, when all the files are downloaded, to strip out the banner ads and useless JavaScript code, and to change the page navigation to work properly in an archived location. I tried it out on on file just to see what it looks like, and I must say it rules not having to look at these blasted banner ads and all the extra junk at the bottom of the page. It seems to maintain all the graphics except the smilies, and I think I might be able to fix that in VBScript as well.

Jeff brings up a good point:

This pruning would not take place for at least six months. It would do nothing to address the current server space problems. Starting a new thread would take up more space on the server than continuing the previous thread.

Case in point, The Hotties of the LOTR thread. If you closed that thread and a new one opened, what would happen? All the pictures previously posted would get re-posted in the new thread. Until the old thread reached the post-closing 6 month prune date the pictures would be on the server twice.

farraday: AS far as I'm concerned this discussion is over.

Debo, I highly doubt you're going to get your one decent reply.

Just because farraday is unwilling to fulfill his duties as a mod doesn't mean all the others should go along with him. And it's not true that the whole administration has agreed to this.

Hi. I'm new to this argument, but let me take a swipe at it.

The purpose of the a Thread Cap is to try and limit the incosequential "ups" and +1 sort of posts that take up pages of the huge threads; basically, if you have 5,000 posts in a thread, you'll try and make them count more than in a thread of unlimited size.

Take the EUC for example. There is a 5k Thread Cap in there if memory serves. Before, many of the monster threads (Han's Deli, EUDF, Hater's Community) had a lot of pages of just +1 and up posts meant to buoy the thread and increase it's total post number. Since the Thread Cap, posts have been reserved in a sense, people posting conversation pieces and actually communicating with others instead of jsut trying to make their thread the biggest it is. The Thread Cap in there has been a success.

Take the JCC. Place a Thread Cap on some of the behemoths in there and you'll get:

A. More posts by new members (people are scared by size and ignored by new members; to not accept that is ignoring what happens all the time)
B. Posts with more content, something always preferred and pushed around here
C. Decrease of page errors that yes, do plague some of the big threads.


"In threads where this is a problem, it can be dealt with. In threads where this is not a problem, it's a complete non-issue."

It may not be a problem now, but turning your head to the possability is just being ignorant of a situation that does occur in the big threads. Simply saying "it won't happen to my thread" is a bit silly, folks. It's a non-argument, one that I will not accept. It is not as though your thread idea will die; that is why you can start a new thread (and as for server space, a a thread with 17,000 posts is probably going to take up more space, cause more problems and contain more quantity/quality posts than three 5K threads, I'd wager).

As for archiving. Well, if you love a page enough, then you'll go through the pages and save it yourself. You can do it, perhaps not so it looks as pretty as it does originally, but you can get a rough form surely. Copying a thread as a word file (though it will be massive) will retain graphics, markup codes etc if you select everything, not just the text. Copies as a table w/ images.


I don't know the intricacies of pruning and what would happen, so I cannot comment on that.

Lord Bane, I'm still waiting for JCC to be deleted. You didn't get my hopes up for nothing did you? As long as you need server space you may as well just wipe the whole thing out.

Oh, you're such a tease.

Gonk damn it! The adminstration never follows through on any of it's good threats.

Riley Man, Jedi Greg Maddux has T1, and is archiving JCC threads to a new board. He has a thread in JC Community. click here

I agree with Pyrus, That was the best threat and it never happened.

A. More posts by new members (people are scared by size and ignored by new members; to not accept that is ignoring what happens all the time)

It can be nice to have a thread where most of the faces are familiar. This doesn't mean new members are not allowed; it just means that a thread is not over-run with new people. If the people who post in a thread want a bunch of new people they can decide for themselves to start a new thread.

B. Posts with more content, something always preferred and pushed around here

That might happen. It also might not happen.

C. Decrease of page errors that yes, do plague some of the big threads.

The errors I've seen are all minor enough that I don't mind much.

It may not be a problem now, but turning your head to the possability is just being ignorant of a situation that does occur in the big threads. Simply saying "it won't happen to my thread" is a bit silly, folks.

Disregarding the possibility that it won't happen, not giving the thread a chance to continue on its on merits and just assuming that there is no way it will not degenerate into spam, is more than a bit silly.

(and as for server space, a a thread with 17,000 posts is probably going to take up more space, cause more problems and contain more quantity/quality posts than three 5K threads, I'd wager).

Yeah, because 5000 x 3 < 17,000. But I'm sure that two 2500 post threads would take up more space than one 5000 post thread (assuming average post size is equal).

Here are all the good reasons for this policy that have been given so far:

"Here are all the good reasons for this policy that have been given so far:






"

Since it seems rather apparent, to me at least, that this policy will be policy, wouldn't it be more valuble to provide reasons for the policy not to be implemented? Lord Bane has given more solid support for it than anyone has dissent.

That's all in my twisted view of things, of course.

"Yeah, because 5000 x 3 < 17,000. But I'm sure that two 2500 post threads would take up more space than one 5000 post thread (assuming average post size is equal)."


I follow, but the point is, that one thread, given no limit, will end up taking more space than the other threads that would break down into it and the reason there is a post count discrepancy is because the smaller threads would probably gross less posts than the one large thread that us more condusive to spam and +1/up posts. At least, that is my experience.


AND look at it this way: you have a 17,000 posts active thread taking up space vs a 2,000 posts active thread, a 5K locked thread and two pruned 5k threads that no longer take up space. I think farraday tried to make this point earlier, but he worded a bit awkwardly.

Jeff, JGM, damn fine work. I'm sorry for not lurching into this thing earlier. farry, you screwed up royally with your treatment of this situation, and that ain't exactly winning the peasents over from your earlier troubles.

I can't really say a whole lot, as what needs to be said has already been said rather well. But, deleting threads that have such sentimental and quasi-historical value to the people here is just plain stupid. You've chosen a non-issue and decided to fight a ferocious fight for it, and right now, it's costing you badly.

You're thinking symbolism over substance, here, guys. Could you possibly have aimed for a more practical solution, like weeding out the hundreds of old threads that no one is going to touch again, and are just sitting there on the JCC back pages? Deleting spam threads from days past, social threads that are null and uncared for, and any number of old discussions that haven't been touched would do far more than the deletion of just one or two 5K-threads.

This thing stinks of Spring/Summer 2000, and it's painfully obvious that Snowboard is not living up to it's promise of being a "Crash-free, unlimited-post size haven" that was thrown about before the move. Let's make the right choices this time, and take some real action instead of shooting ourselves in the foot.

If this decision goes down, you'll have pissed off this forum's best and brightest for the umpteenth-time. This trend is going to cost us all in the long run, and I'd never thought I'd have to see this place wind up where it is today.

farry, Los Modos, rethink this NOW, while there's still time.

I want to absence hyperbole from my next statement, but it'll be hard for you to believe it.

The JC is very quickly running out of server space and threads will be permantly deleted regardless of sentamentality (unless they are archived by intrepid souls) and the reality of us moving first to get more space is slim to none. We're at Snowboards for the duration of Ep2 and maybe even the rest of the year and to get space, we need to start trimming the fat and dead threads.

Thread Caps will probably be put into use because they have been met with success before (EUC).

Pruning will probably become a reality in FanFic...with a vengeance!!

Exactly, Bane, and there's certainly sacrifices that need to be made. But, we can certainly make those sacrifices easier by cutting the actual "fat" as you said, instead of virulent discussions and meaningful threads like the ones we have.