Loooong threads :)

Some of our active threads can get very very long, so much so that they become cumbersome to load for those of us still on dial-up... but we still wanna track them and participate! :)

There are two options that quickly come to mind for handling long threads:

1. Set a posting limit per thread, say 100 posts, especially if the thread contains lots of pics. Someone (anyone interested in the thread) then can start a second one and provide a hyperlink to the first, and vice versa, to allow continuity between the two.

2. Introduce a paging feature, say 50 posts per page, so that they quickly load up on the screen. Provide buttons to allow the user to jump to page 2 or 3 or beyond.

Those are only the first ideas I had, and likely aren't the best. Who has better suggestions along this line? Or wishes to comment on whether it's even necessary?

I can take any and all hits... lol... 'cause I certainly don't have the corner on 'great ideas'!

Donna, who thinks a lot, then falls asleep :)

P.S. It would be kewl if we could also still 'skip to new' on the #2, so we could pick up on the page where we left off, but I imagine it would be difficult to code. Still, I really really like the 'skip to new' feature! :)

People with dail-up certainly have my sympathy. We only recently got a DSL line, so the frustration is fresh on my mind.

Judy

The boards at 3FC do what you're talking about, Donna -- I really like how threads automatically span multiple pages and how we can skip to new and be on whatever page contains the newest post. http://www.3fatchicks.com/forum/index.php?

This message was edited Mar 25, 2005 2:55 AM

I can sympathize. I've had broadband for not quite a week. Finally. But up until last Monday, I was trying to load these pages on at 44K. You click on the link, go fill your coffee cup, stop by the bathroom, and then come back!

If you have Mozilla Firefox and dialup, you right-click on the long thread & put it in a new tab. Then you can look at other stuff while it's loading.

I made a suggestion a couple years back that after a certain number of posts that it automatically creates a new thread and would give a link to the new one. Dave said he was going to do it but I guess he got busy and it slipped through the crack so to speak.
I don't have dial up any more. Thank God and Charter.

I'm on dial up and most likely always will be. I've tried and tried to get DSL in my neck of the woods, but no go. Not enough population to make it worth while for the telephone company. A publisher lives 2 miles north of me and he offered to pay for the line to be put in, and they agreed, but then they told him that THEY owned the line, and he had nothing to say about it, even though he paid for it. Ugg.. Needless to say, that didn't pan out either.

So, from home I'm connecting at 26.4 Kbps. At work I have DSL though. Phwew! I can do a ton of DG catching up on my lunch hour, but at home it takes about 3 times as long.

Thanks for all the tips and ideas, folks. This was not really intended to be a personal whine about having dial-up; my bad!

I love how quickly the site operates. Even when I'm using DSL (have access through SO1's computer), some of the threads I've enjoyed following do take a noticeable amount of time to load.

Obviously, I'd like to see the longer threads chunked up a bit. Would that disturb the continuity of a thread, though? If one was reading straight through, it might not matter. But if one is going back to reread comments to which they wish to elaborate, the paging might be more cumbersome than scrolling through. Hmm... hadn't thought about the benefits of using keywords within a single page thread, though...

Okay, how about setting a user preference for the number of posts displayed per page on a thread, such as 20, 50, or all? Then we can have our cake and eat it, too. :)

Everybody nod yes. LOL
Donna

I love the thought of choosing the number of posts on a page. It might work better to choose the number of lines, though, as some posts are extremely long and some are one or two words. Then again, they might average out, too.

I'm on wireless & even there a long thread takes a bit of time. One I am watching is up to 340 posts. It takes a second & a half to come up. I can't imagine how long it would take on dial-up, if it ever did come up.
Bernie

I have dial-up, and a thread that's too long doesn't load for me. I get the top part of the page, and the lower-left corner of my browser says "Done" or Done but with errors.