| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Cookies
Trick Member
Joined: 06 Apr 2002
|
20.  Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2003 9:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Come on, it's not like The Alf is the only user to ever put on 100 posts in one day.
I seriously don't understand how this is going to promote postwhoring though. I actually could care less if one was implemented. I wouldn't use it, but some people might. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guido
Trick Member
Joined: 09 Apr 2002
Location: Erie, PA |
| 21. Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2003 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| J Dogg wrote: | | hmmm...it *would* improve server performance... fewer pages to load. |
Well, J, can we give it a shot?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mebe munky
Trick Member
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: New Tokyo-3 |
| 22. Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2003 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
quick reply is a good idea, and makes browsing the board not seem like a hassle.. i've noticed that on faster connections, ddrfreak seems to take even longer to load.. a quick reply is greatly needed, imo. and if somebody wants to be a 'post whore', they can do it eiter way.. that matter has very little to do with a QR
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sk1p
Trick Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2002
Location: When your girlfriend asks, I'm a |
| 23. Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2003 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Judging from the amount of people who simply read threads, I don't think it would help out bandwidth much. In Random Chat, about one in eight or nine page views actually results in a post. I don't know the exact size of the "quick reply" boxes and the normal reply page, but for it to have any noticeable effect on server performance bandwidth use of one quick reply would have to be at least ten times smaller than that of one reply page.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guido
Trick Member
Joined: 09 Apr 2002
Location: Erie, PA |
| 24. Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2003 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well in Maddenmania's Quick Reply box its about half of the size of ddrfreak's reply box. But with this you have no features like [img] tags or smiley faces, etc, you can still put them in just you have to know what to right down, ex. : ) = 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J Dogg
Administrator
Joined: 16 Jan 2002
Location: Sunnyvale, CA |
| 25. Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2003 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chunky McChunk wrote: | | Judging from the amount of people who simply read threads, I don't think it would help out bandwidth much. In Random Chat, about one in eight or nine page views actually results in a post. I don't know the exact size of the "quick reply" boxes and the normal reply page, but for it to have any noticeable effect on server performance bandwidth use of one quick reply would have to be at least ten times smaller than that of one reply page. |
It may increase bandwidth usage, but that's not the performance I'm talking about. I am referring to CPU performance. It will reduce the number of queries needed to execute to post.
Suppose v = # of views, p = # of posts. Suppose the performance cost of one view is 1, the cost of clicking the post button is 1, and the cost of actually submitting is 1. 10 views for every post means v = 10p.
Currently, the total cost of running the forums is v + (p + p). views + 1 post = views + (1 click to post + 1 actual post). If quick reply were implemented and everybody used it, the cost of running the forums is v + p.
| Code: |
v + 2p 10p + 2p 12p
------ = -------- = ---
v + p 10p + p 11p
|
The CPU load will potentially decrease by 12/11, or 9%, which may be something worth considering.
This is also not taking into account the number of times people click the reply button and not submit. If the occurrence of this is nontrivial, it could possibly make this performance increase higher.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Deus
Trick Member
Joined: 27 Dec 2002
Location: smooveville |
| 26. Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2003 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I only hit "reply" and didn't reply when a thread was bugged, and needed to see the last post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus!
Trick Member
Joined: 13 Mar 2002
|
| 27. Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2003 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If this does cost more, can we impliment this idea and I'll make some donations to DDRfreak in return? 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Deus
Trick Member
Joined: 27 Dec 2002
Location: smooveville |
| 28. Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2003 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think donations are already appreciated, but I don't think a meager $20 will help out much. Server/Hosting costs for this site are probably insane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus!
Trick Member
Joined: 13 Mar 2002
|
| 29. Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2003 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm but if every member donates $20 then I see $$cha ching$$ in J doggs eyes 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BeachBum
Trick Member
Joined: 21 Jun 2003
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, U.S.A. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DJTyrant
Maniac Member
Joined: 25 Jan 2002
Location: Ventura, CA |
| 31. Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2003 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddrguido5 wrote: | | Easier? This feature is to make it more convinent for the poster. The majority of posters here aren't post s. Just a small percent all. Why should they ruin something that can help out the rest of the posters at DDRFreak. I just wanna add this because it would make posting here much easier especially for dial-up users. |
did you runa survey to find out who post whores and doesn't?
I think not...
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
L'amour Et La Liberte
Trick Member
Joined: 20 Mar 2003
Location: North Carolina |
| 32. Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2003 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Is there any way to sort the memberlist by postcount? Is there even any way other than looking at somebody's profile to tell how many posts they have? (like the top 10 posters..?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cookies
Trick Member
Joined: 06 Apr 2002
|
| 33. Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2003 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| there is one. but this list breeds postwhoring. That makes cranky moderators. So it won't be posted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phrekwenci
Administrator
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Location: New York, NY |
| 34. Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2003 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| L'amour Et La Liberte wrote: | | Is there any way to sort the memberlist by postcount? Is there even any way other than looking at somebody's profile to tell how many posts they have? (like the top 10 posters..?) |
There is, like VGS said. And it was in fact posted in another thread in this forum. But I don't think it will do you any good.
The top 20 of the list consists of about 10 moderators (give or take), and a few other good contributors (like, VGS, Rancidfish and cfusionpm)
I can pretty surely believe the moderators aren't post whoring, so the top list probably won't do you much good.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Deus
Trick Member
Joined: 27 Dec 2002
Location: smooveville |
| 35. Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2003 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Phrekwenci wrote: | | L'amour Et La Liberte wrote: | | Is there any way to sort the memberlist by postcount? Is there even any way other than looking at somebody's profile to tell how many posts they have? (like the top 10 posters..?) |
There is, like VGS said. And it was in fact posted in another thread in this forum. But I don't think it will do you any good.
The top 20 of the list consists of about 10 moderators (give or take), and a few other good contributors (like, VGS, Rancidfish and cfusionpm)
I can pretty surely believe the moderators aren't post whoring, so the top list probably won't do you much good. |
Probably half of all Spike's posts just consist of "Locked" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CStarFlare
Maniac Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2002
|
| 36. Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phrekwenci wrote: | | I can pretty surely believe the moderators aren't post whoring, so the top list probably won't do you much good. |
| JustJeff wrote: | Welcome. The biggest post whores live in the Moderators Group.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phrekwenci
Administrator
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Location: New York, NY |
| 37. Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, so maybe it seems that way because of this:
However, there is a purpose everytime a moderator uses just that. It is to know which moderator locked the particular thread. So, you may PM that mod with comments about it.
..and finding that doesn't help us at all CStar. =P
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Forums FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
