Board Logo

Is this forum upside down? (or episdn umop)
modulus - April 26th, 2004 at 10:17 PM

The subject of top-posting vs. bottom-posting to newsgroups always seems to generate flame-throwing but as this forum is chronically suffering bandwidth shortages I think it is worth the risk of raising it here.

As a regular user, I rarely need to see all the preceding posts in "Spyder gets a rebuild", I'm generally only interested in the most recent, so how about having that first, rather than last?

How many Gigabytes of bandwidth are wasted because we have to relive the past to get to the present? Each time someone is presented with ten photos of "rats" which they have seen five times before, in order to view the eleventh, new, photo, bandwidth is wasted compared to having a "new posts on top" style. This at least merits a few quick tests.

That said, I'll now don my flame-proof suit and retire to a quiet corner.

hth

[Edited on 26-4-2004 by modulus]


fetid_swamp - April 26th, 2004 at 10:25 PM

logical and overall value, just like veedubs

thumbs up...


killakornkobb - April 26th, 2004 at 10:25 PM

second that :)


fetid_swamp - April 26th, 2004 at 10:36 PM

btw. modulus -

excellent job with
http://www.aussiekombicampers.com/index.shtml 

can it be put up the top line of this site with the other stuff so its more in your face.

[Edited on 26-4-2004 by fetid_swamp]


EgeWorks - April 27th, 2004 at 08:40 AM

If we are really struggling for bandwidth just stipulate that all images be externally hosted. I think that ~90% of this sites bandwidth is images and there are plenty of free image hosting sites out there.

I don't mind if the post order is reversed but it seems quite a big change to make. But I don't know XMB at all so I can't really say.


tassupervee - April 27th, 2004 at 02:18 PM

I raised this issue some time ago, particularly with the e-mail notified posts bearing in midd that the URL of the thread mail'd pointed to the original post, not the most recent post on the thread. I suggested that the url sent by mail pointed at the most recent post.
Since the forum has been updated, this particular feature is now the case however the second part of my post concerned exactly what Modulus has outlined here.

I was quite tersely replied to by gawd only knows who, stating that if I wished to view the most recent post then click on the little arrow that resided on the R/H side of the "Todays Posts" index that I usually use.

Bearing in mind the ever growing issue of bandwidth use and the often tedious nature of having to load the first page and then move on to the last, (not all of us have access to a hot connection) I totally agree with Modulus and listing last post to first and having the little arrow (or whatever it may be now) that lives on the recent posts index point to the original post of the thread so people can read up on the thread from the beginning if they need to.

Take your fire suit off Modulus. An excellent suggestion in my view!

L8tr
E

[Edited on 27/4/04 by tassupervee]


lulu94 - April 27th, 2004 at 05:37 PM

sounds like a good idea but i dont think it would really work having all pictures externally hosted as alot of people on here probably arent as internet smart as some, i know that i wouldnt have a clue how to get a pic hosted and im sure that im not the only one.

Danielle


baybuscamperkid - April 27th, 2004 at 06:10 PM

when there are multiple pages u can choose which page to load by clicking the number in the post heading anyway!?!


Baja Wes - May 20th, 2004 at 02:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by modulus
How many Gigabytes of bandwidth are wasted because we have to relive the past to get to the present? Each time someone is presented with ten photos of "rats" which they have seen five times before, in order to view the eleventh, new, photo, bandwidth is wasted compared to having a "new posts on top" style.


If it has to load a page, it has to load a page. Whether the new post is at the top of that page or the bottom of that page is irrelevant and does not effect the bandwidth.

The trick is to only click on the page you haven't read. Click straight on the last page.

The question then becomes, how many posts do you have on a page. 1 post per page would mean you wouldn't have to look at any old posts, but it would be painful to read. Around 20-25 posts per page is a good number. 15 would be the absolute minimum you'd want.