Welcome to Motorhomefacts, we are a thriving motorhome community (Largest in Europe). Why Not JOIN NOW and get instant access to more of the website. It costs nothing to join and only takes a few minutes. We have 200,000 different people visiting our site monthly and this amount of motorhomers in one place guarantees a fast response to any questions you may have. We also have unique facilities not found elsewhere such as our Online Logbook, stopover tracker, Motorhome directory with Ebay type feedback and the largest repository of motorhome campsites reviews found anywhere
if you mean why not have all the posts in a thread shown on a single page, its mainly to do with load on the server, the more posts displayed on a page, the more database queries are processed.
The pages are generated "on the fly" as you request them by clicking on a link to the thread ...so the more posts there are in a page the harder the server has to work to make up the page and provide them to your computer for you to read.
We did have more posts in a page but Nuke has tinkered and tuned the system to optimise the server time and make everyone's access times a little quicker ... just out of interest the server has created around 74 million pages since this server at MHF started.
mike
______________________________________________________________ When confronted by a problem, you can solve it easily by reducing it to the question, "How would the Lone Ranger have handled this?"
All understood & I'll just have to keep on'clicking to keep the Servers happy, they must be tender souls ~ unlike my old Dinner Lady Servers!
As a separate and non-connected semantic aside:
Many years ago we all used to call our domestic elecro-magnetic wave receiving device 'the Wireless', until that term went out fashion and the bakelite box then became the Radio.
Now, as Wireless has come back into use for devices communicating with our Pcs without using wired connections, I dont suppose it will be too long before the term Radio replaces Wireless yet again....mmmm.....
I understand the theory of the reply regarding the server load, however I think the reasoning is flawed as I'm having to scroll backwards and forwards between pages of posts on the same thread.
With the tabbed pages features of IE7 and beyond it's possible to open subsequent pages of posts in a separate browser page without closing the original page, but I seriously doubt if many people are doing that.
Therefore I suggest the load on the server is actually higher with just ten posts per page than if it was lifted to, say, 40.
........it's possible to open subsequent pages of posts in a separate browser page without closing the original page, but I seriously doubt if many people are doing that.
Tim
I have to do this frequently to compare what appear to be duplicate posts and make sure they are duplicates before moving one out of the thread. It makes it much easier to compare if the page size is reduced and the posts are put side by side.
You would be surprised at how often it happens.
It's also useful when you want to pick information etc from a thread in order to use it in a reply on another thread. You still have to copy and paste but it's easier if you have both threads open at the same time.
Therefore I suggest the load on the server is actually higher with just ten posts per page than if it was lifted to, say, 40.
actually I can assure you it isn't so, we ran tests and the server load was considerably higher and it was linked directly to the number of posts per page.
It's also important from the users point of view, large threads with many posts could seem unresponsive when you click on the thread to view it, especially on slower internet connections. limiting the amount of posts/page and having several pages improves the interface performance speed wise, ensuring you have something to read pretty quick as opposed to waiting for the page to load. personally when i click on a webpage link i need to be reading something in around 2 seconds or i start going somewhere else, statistically i think most people are prepared to wait about 4 or 5 seconds before before they start getting a negative experience.
If i was developing the forum software i would design it so that admin set the max and min posts permitted per page, and that users can select their prefered amount, between these values, in their account settings. that way both side are catered for, to an extent.
Therefore I suggest the load on the server is actually higher with just ten posts per page than if it was lifted to, say, 40.
actually I can assure you it isn't so, we ran tests and the server load was considerably higher and it was linked directly to the number of posts per page.
Hi Irene-and-Tim.
Thanks for pressing for this highly-desirable feature again, but it still seems that 'The Computer says NO'..........
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
France
