"Thread you posted in" Marker gone?

[AtomicKitKat]

Normally, there's a little indicator beside threads you have participated in. I'm guessing removed to conserve bandwidth?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Probably.

Subscription has not been removed though.

[Rawhide]

Crazy Dan must be having another sale.

[Scientivore]

Normally, there's a little indicator beside threads you have participated in. I'm guessing removed to conserve bandwidth?

I was just going to ask about that.

On a tangential topic, I think that it would technically conserve server processor cycles rather than bandwidth. I'll grant that it's not really a significant distinction for us because either way it's a resource that improves website performance and costs the owner money.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Crazy Dan must be having another sale.

Maybe we should start a poll about what will go next .:smalltongue:

[Ikkitosen]

Oh no! Now I have to actually remember where I posted :smalleek: :smallfrown:

[Khantalas]

Maybe we should start a poll about what will go next .:smalltongue:

Wait, wha...

Ooh. You're a smart one, indeed. As smart as Boo sometimes!

[One Skunk Todd]

Normally, there's a little indicator beside threads you have participated in. I'm guessing removed to conserve bandwidth?

Belkar stole them all. :)

[Mc. Lovin']

And the members list has been disabled...
Ah well, I'd prefer to have a working site rather than these decent fetures

[Shhalahr Windrider]

And the members list has been disabled...
Ah, crap! I was gonna make a comment about knowing we've gone too far once we lose features we already had on YaBB. But then we had a Members List on YaBB, so it looks like we've already crossed that point. :smallyuk:

[Zherog]

I guess we're seeing why WotC has search disabled. vB is a freakin' resource pig...

[Ego Slayer]

I've just noticed there's no quick reply, and multi-quote, too.:smalleek:

[Azrael]

I'm pretty patient about features coming and going. And I try to be helpful, suggestive and nice. But this particular loss is SO GODDAMN ANNOYING that I'm having trouble being polite about it.

[Rawhide]

I'm pretty patient about features coming and going. And I try to be helpful, suggestive and nice. But this particular loss is SO GODDAMN ANNOYING that I'm having trouble being polite about it.

If you can't say something polite then don't say anything at all.

[Captain van der Decken]

I noticed this was gone. It was one of the more useful features, to say the least.

What else can we expect to go in the near future, if anything?


Wait, wha...

Ooh. You're a smart one, indeed. As smart as Boo sometimes!

I love you.

[Jacob Orlove]

I'm pretty patient about features coming and going. And I try to be helpful, suggestive and nice. But this particular loss is SO GODDAMN ANNOYING that I'm having trouble being polite about it.
If you click on your profile, you can "view all posts of this user", which gets you a whole bunch of single posts. The ones with green icons are threads you have posted in that have posts you have not yet read.

Now watch as that feature gets disabled, too.

[Rawhide]

Searching, which is what that is, is one of the most strenuous features on the board. And yes, that being disabled is an option like, as Zherog has said, has been done over at WotC.

Please limit your searching.

[Amiria]

The loss of this marker is really aggravating. I hope that it will return.

I don't know anything about all this technical stuff. Maybe disable some other feature instead ? Like images in signatures, if it helps ?

[Rawhide]

The three two rules of robotics the server

1. No process may harm the website. This means the forums will be taken down (as you have already seen) to ensure that the rest of the site functions.

2. No feature of the forums may harm the forums. This means that features will be taken out to keep the forums running.


What does that mean? Well, first you have to work backwards. We will take any means necessary to keep the forums running, and that includes shutting off features. Failing that, we will take any means necessary to keep the website running, and that includes shutting off the forums.

I sympathise that some conveniences are being taken away and I am sorry, but unfortunately in this instance no one has an avenue to complain, we have to do what we have to do.

[Zherog]

Over on WotC they've mentioned that when (if?) search comes back up, they will be limiting users to one search every two minutes (or whatever time frame). Is that a standard feature of the software, or a hack they're planning on implementing? If it's a standard feature, does that make sense for implementing here?

If I had my choice of search on one side of the ledger and Quick Reply plus Multiquote (or whatever it's called) on the other side, I'd absolutely prefer QR plus MQ; I ever so rarely use search, but I use those other two quite a bit.

***

The suggestion to ban guests from reading has been brought up. I'm against that idea, and hope it's never implemented.

However... guests can search right now, by clicking on a profile and then using the "find all posts by this user" profile. I wouldn't be opposed to disabling that feature for guests, if it's possible to turn it off.

[Emperor Tippy]

I miss my quick reply and knowing where I have posted.

Is QR really a resource hog? Or does the removal of it just reduce the number of posts that people make?

And why do we still have searching? Thats what the google is for.

[The Giant]

Rawhide has the right idea; first prority, that people can read the comics. Second priority, that people can actually read and post on the message boards AT ALL. Distant third priority, that people have all of the conveniences to which they are accustomed on the message board.

Now, we are investigating several options which might allow some of these features to return (I particularly miss Multiquote already), but until we have made a decision and enacted them, we're all going to have to suck it up for a little while.

[Ego Slayer]

Simu'd.:smalltongue:

Because I think searching though a forum with Google would be a) hard, and/or b) annoying.

I use that feature and, IMHO, it should be far down on the list of features that should be disabled. I don't think it falls into the "bells and whistles" category.

[Raistlin1040]

Alas poor quick reply. I knew thee well.

[HempRope]

Hm, losing multi-quote is bad, but losing the posted-in marker is the worst loss we've had so far. Can we please disable searching before we lose the ability to post?

[Jacob Orlove]

Over on WotC they've mentioned that when (if?) search comes back up, they will be limiting users to one search every two minutes (or whatever time frame). Is that a standard feature of the software, or a hack they're planning on implementing? If it's a standard feature, does that make sense for implementing here?
This site already has a limit of one search per minute.

[AtomicKitKat]

Wait Multi-quote? Is that "quote in a quote"(which wasn't on YABB as far as I could tell)? Or "quote more than one person in a single reply"?:smallconfused:

[Jack Squat]

the second one

[AtomicKitKat]

I used to open multiple tabs of quotes, then C/P them all into a single one.

[Zherog]

This site already has a limit of one search per minute.

So extend it. Two minutes strikes me as reasonable, but even something as long as 3-5 minutes could be livable (says the guy who never uses search).

Also, what about completely removing search for guests? I logged out and verified a guest could run a search by going to a user profile and clicking the "find more posts by..." link.

[Demented]

Alas, Quick Reply! I've always used Advanced Search, then narrowed search results as much as possible to reduce server load (and irrelevant) data. It'd be ironic if those two features are actually more intensive than the normal stuff.

Also, the "New Posts" button is a search as well, and still works. :smallconfused:

[Icewalker]

Aw man I used these marks! Oh well, I guess The Giant is definitely right about those priorities though, so they'll be gone for now...

[Dhavaer]

There's a possibility I'll be lynched for this, but I'm very happy Quick Reply is gone. If it was taking up space, that space could certainly be put to better use elsewhere.

I'll also support the request to bring down Search in favour of the post markers. Surely Search is the bigger resource hog, and less frequently used?

[Zherog]

I've always used Advanced Search, then narrowed search results as much as possible to reduce server load (and irrelevant) data. It'd be ironic if those two features are actually more intensive than the normal stuff.

When I had some tech type talks with some of the people at WotC about how the search feature accesses the database, it came up that it's more efficient to search all the forums rather than a single forum. This is due to the way the database is structured.

I'm still not quite convinced that's true; my job is working on the same type of database (relational), though a different brand (Oracle instead of MySQL). So, I can understand how the database could be structured so that querying all forums would be more efficient. I'm just not sure I believe vB is set up that poorly.


Also, the "New Posts" button is a search as well, and still works. :smallconfused:

If hardly anybody uses it, there isn't much point in disabling it - even if it's a bad resource hog. That's sort of the ironic thing - it makes more sense for Rawhide to turn off features people like because those get used and therefore contribute to the problem.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

If I had my choice of search on one side of the ledger and Quick Reply plus Multiquote (or whatever it's called) on the other side, I'd absolutely prefer QR plus MQ; I ever so rarely use search, but I use those other two quite a bit.
I doubt very many people would have cause to search as often as they multiquote, but when you do search, it can be a lifesaver. If you need to find a particular post, it's kinda nice to not have to sift through every page of a given forum, don't you think?

[Ikkitosen]

I use the "go to first new post" button a lot. I don't miss quick reply much, or multi-quote (I just quote, C+P, and quote again), and I wouldn't miss search.

I do miss my little ticks reminding me which discussions I'm having though :smallfrown:

Note that I'm not complaining, and I agree totally with the priority order laid out by the site staff, I'm just havin' me say :smallsmile:

[Ego Slayer]

There's a possibility I'll be lynched for this, but I'm very happy Quick Reply is gone. If it was taking up space, that space could certainly be put to better use elsewhere.
I won't lynch you for that, but...


I'll also support the request to bring down Search in favour of the post markers. Surely Search is the bigger resource hog, and less frequently used?
I will for this.
Even if it's a resource hog, it's not used very often.

Am I the only one who never used the post markers?:smallconfused:

[Rex Idiotarum]

Markers? Are those those little check marks? I never really used them, and didn't notice they were gone. I deal mostly with Subscriptions and Remembering where I post.

[Emperor Tippy]

I never use the go to first new post one but I liked the check marks. It was nice when a thread I posted in a week or so ago goes off the first page and then comes back later.

[Ego Slayer]

I worship the "first new post" button.:smalltongue:

Wouldn't Subscriptions eat up more resources than the marker?

[Rex Idiotarum]

SHhhhh!!! Ego, they might take that away as well.

Actually, I think you can mangle this place all you want, but the server problems will keep coming back. I hope you find a plausible solution before we have to take away the Forums indefinitely. As forum participants increases, as will the problems. Judging by the commonality of Lapses, I'd say we won't last long until the next on.

I'm pretty sure the RSS Feed is causing a lot of problems as well.

[Emperor Tippy]

What we need is a better server and more bandwidth. But the giant took away donations and won't allow advertising.

I have no idea why the donations box went away, I woudl donate $5 bucks or so towards a new server and I am sure that lots of other people woudl give some money as well.

As for advertising, I understand why the giant won't allow it but I do somewhat disagree with the decision.

[Ego Slayer]

This is the only site I go to without ads. It's awesome, but I can understand both sides.

If the donations box returned, and if it would really help the server problems, then I would most definitely donate more than $5.

*shrug*

Heheh, sorry, Rex. ^_~

[Emperor Tippy]

This is the only site I go to without ads. It's awesome, but I can understand both sides.

If the donations box returned, and if it would really help the server problems, then I would most definitely donate more than $5.

*shrug*

Heheh, sorry, Rex. ^_~

Well I stopped giving it to fark so I have $5 per month that I'm just saving at the moment and that is slated for something I enjoy. So it could dgo here (and would have if the donation box was around).

And if I hadn't just spent most of my money on my new computers then I would be tempted to give a LOT more.

I didn't really need the extra 2 TB of hard drive space I bought. :smallbiggrin:

[Fax Celestis]

A question: is a limited search (such as, "thread titles only", "posts started by this user", "$Search_Variable") less--or, horror of horrors, more--intensive than a regular search?

[Emperor Tippy]

A question: is a limited search (such as, "thread titles only", "posts started by this user", "$Search_Variable") less--or, horror of horrors, more--intensive than a regular search?

That depends on how vBulletin is set up but I could easily see it being more in some cases.

If it was coded correctly and the database is set up right then a limited search should be less intense than a regular search. But I can see some idiot coding it wrong and makeing it more intensive fairly easily.

[Zherog]

I mentioned this earlier in this thread. I do database stuff for a living, and when WotC started having all sorts of problems from searching, I talked to some people there to see if I could help "tune" any queries or anything.

I never actually got to see code or database schemas; all I have to go on is what I was told. Basically, the way the vB database is setup, it's more efficient to search all forums than a single forum. I never got into the specific details you're looking at. As Tippy says, it really could go either way, depending on the way the database is laid out.

I would suspect that searching titles only would be more efficient, simply because there's WAY less text to crawl through.

Normally, I would think "posts by this user" would also be more efficient, simply because of the way indexes can be defined on the database; however, I would also think searching a specific forum would be more efficient for the same reasons, and it's not. So that one... *shrug* My instincts tell me it should be better, but there's certainly ways to establish the relationships in the database that would make it worse.

[Emperor Tippy]

I was thinking the same Zherog but knowing vBulletin they could have the search algorithm backwards.

Instead of searching titles first (or users as the case may be) it searches every post for any that have the query in them and then it searches those posts for which have the Query in the title bar.

Search order should go forum > poster > title > post

vBulletin might go post > title > poster > forum

[Fax Celestis]

I was thinking the same Zherog but knowing vBulletin they could have the search algorithm backwards.

Instead of searching titles first (or users as the case may be) it searches every post for any that have the query in them and then it searches those posts for which have the Query in the title bar.

Search order should go forum > poster > title > post

vBulletin might go post > title > poster > forum

Wouldn't that be ridiculous. Man, I'm a comms major with practically no programming experience (well, vBasic, but that doesn't count), and even I know that that's terribly inefficient.

Then again, so's the Dewey Decimal system, and that's standard.

[Zherog]

It may not be as inefficient as you think, most of the time. It's likely "optimized" for what is done most often. If 80% of searches are looking through all posts for a specific phrase, then the second path is in fact the most efficient - even though the other 20% will bring your system to its knees if your user base searches with a top/down approach (forum -> poster -> etc...)

However... it's also possible (at least in Oracle - again, my MySQL knowledge is limited) to set up your indexes so you could go both directions, and the database engine itself is capable of determining the best path based upon your specific data.

[Fax Celestis]

It may not be as inefficient as you think, most of the time. It's likely "optimized" for what is done most often.

However... it's also possible (at least in Oracle - again, my MySQL knowledge is limited) to set up your indexes so you could go both directions, and the database engine itself is capable of determining the best path based upon your specific data.

Is there forum software based off of Oracle?

[Zherog]

Not that I'm aware of, and it would likely be extremely expensive. Oracle generally costs more than MySQL and requires more hardware to run.

edit2: Also, I edited more info into my previous post while you were asking your question, Fax. It might be useful - or it might not... *shrug*

[Emperor Tippy]

Wouldn't that be ridiculous. Man, I'm a comms major with practically no programming experience (well, vBasic, but that doesn't count), and even I know that that's terribly inefficient.

Then again, so's the Dewey Decimal system, and that's standard.

It would be outrageously ridiculous. That doesn't mean that I couldn't see someone coding it that way.

[Zherog]

Again, it might not be as outrageous as you think. If statistics demonstrate that 80% of all queries are "search in post and title" then it could be more efficient to set your indexes up to go that direction. However, doing so would make the other 20% of your queries really poor.

The best solution, of course, would be to have indexes going along both paths. I don't know if MySQL can handle that (though I assume it can, because it's just a function of relational databases in general, not specifically of Oracle).

[Emperor Tippy]

Again, it might not be as outrageous as you think. If statistics demonstrate that 80% of all queries are "search in post and title" then it could be more efficient to set your indexes up to go that direction. However, doing so would make the other 20% of your queries really poor.

The best solution, of course, would be to have indexes going along both paths. I don't know if MySQL can handle that (though I assume it can, because it's just a function of relational databases in general, not specifically of Oracle).

I responded before seeing your edit.

Yes, if done as a bottom up search then it would be the most efficient for searching all posts. However the loss of efficiency if searching for any higher level type variable (poster or thread title for example) woudl be so great as to make such a search algorithm incredibly stupid in all but a few instances.


A search for all threads and posts containing a specific word isn't that much less efficient if run in the opposite way (Search all thread titles for X word, put results aside, go through threads 1 by 1 and put aside all posts that contain X word). Every post is still getting searched either way and every post has to be called.

Yeah, the search should not be linear. Dynamic paths are a must. And multipel indexed variables.

With a dynamic search algorithm you coudl search for thread titles only and it woudl never even look at all the posts in the thread. Or search for all posts by a user and it again never looks at thread title or content. The only time every post should be searched is if a user wants to find all uses of X in the entire database.

[Rawhide]

We thank you for wanting to assist, but we are actually already 10 steps ahead of you.

[Dhavaer]

Wouldn't Subscriptions eat up more resources than the marker?

Is it possible to turn Subscriptions off? I tried before, but I couldn't find an option to do it.

[Rex Idiotarum]

*Counts fingers...*
... So, you're already considering to call upon Spiderman for your web problem?

[Emperor Tippy]

Who offered to help or assist? All the help I offered was in terms of donating money to get a better server.

And it is always good to knwo that the people running the site are ahead of the user base.

Oh and can you answer Fax's question? Is it less intensive to do a limited search or to do a regular search?

[EmeraldRose]

We thank you for wanting to assist, but we are actually already 10 steps ahead of you.

Well, at this point...not knowing what is going on or what will go next, I think people are willing to help out however they can. I know I am willing to subscribe to the website in an effort to save the Forum, rather than seeing it slowly melt away beneath us.

I don't know if excluding others who don't want to join up is a solution either, for those who've mentioned it...they have just as much right to lurk as any of us who have signed up.

[Roland St. Jude]

I am reluctant to speak for Brother Rawhide, but I believe that he means that in terms of putting together a technical solution we have already considered the many issues raised here and are already in the implementation stage.

As for the donations issue, that is being considered as well.

[Rawhide]

It was a polite way of saying that before the link to .htaccess for hotlinking was provided, we had already done it (indeed, the only delay was confirming that Rich wanted it). That before people posted about the search time limitation, it had already been upped from 0 seconds to 60, and before they suggested increasing it it had been upped further. That between the time of testing guest searching and the first posting of it, it had been disabled. That before someone suggested disabling images in signatures it had been considered and rejected (won't help the server at all).

I'm not being in any way rude about your suggestions and mean it in only the politest of ways and we do appreciate that you would like to assist, we are just trying to cut back on the 10 or so threads people have created regarding the server.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Is it possible to turn Subscriptions off? I tried before, but I couldn't find an option to do it.
Uh... You can choose not to subscribe to anything...

[Velvet Elvis]

The loss of the check marks has already faded, for me, though I liked them.

I don't like seeing Quick Reply going bye-bye. But I'm over it, and don't really have an issue with it.

However, I do have one related question. We used to be able to edit a post "in place," that is, it would just open up an editing box over the post being edited. I assumed that that aspect was built into the CSS (or maybe jscript or something) and wasn't a load on the server at all until the edited post was okayed and sent in. Was I wrong? Cuz I really liked that feature--very convenient, and if it was a client side gizmo, then I'd think it would actually be a lot more efficient than having to always bring up a new editing page, with, I might add, all those previous post quotes beneath it (which is something that I could live without, though it is nice for quick reference--but again, we didn't need that too much with the edit in place function) just to, maybe, correct a typo or something.

As for the search function, wouldn't it be possible to only allow searches to be conducted (or member listings, and other high-stress actions) only when the site's load is below a certain threshold? It'd be a kind of middle-ground, that shouldn't adversely affect anything, and, I'm guessing, should be easy to arrange.

Does Google spider the entire forums here? It's not difficult to use it for searches here, of course. Just include the site's URL as a search element, and everything is limited properly.

Lastly, what about the possibility of splitting the forums from the rest and having them hosted on a different server? Would that make any functional difference and/or be cost effective at all? I"m not sure any of this is a provider issue or more mundane bandwidth/$$ limitations.

[Zherog]

The loss of the check marks has already faded, for me, though I liked them.

This one is hard for me - I post both at home and at work, and the check marks made for an easy way to remember what threads I was participating in. *shrug*


...and if it was a client side gizmo, then I'd think it would actually be a lot more efficient than having to always bring up a new editing page, with, I might add, all those previous post quotes beneath it

When you edit an existing post, you don't see the other posts in the thread.

[Velvet Elvis]

Ahh, yes, you're right. I didn't notice there was a difference, since I rarely look down there anyway. Still, it's an extra page load, but I guess the tradeoff balances somehow.

[Rawhide]

When the server is struggling, the quick reply and inline editing screw up. Its not just a server load and bandwidth issue, but a convenience for you (ever lost a post in high load?).

[Velvet Elvis]

I see.

I've lost many posts due to server load, though I always compose offline and cut/paste, so "lost" just means they didn't get through on a particular try.

However, does the way it works now somehow prevent that problem? Or would it also lose the post should the server become overloaded at the right time?

I guess I'm asking if this new method avoids that issue, or not.

[Rawhide]

Well, there's that, but there's also the times when it looks like your post worked, only to come back 3 hours later and its not there.

[Jack Mann]

If and when the server is fixed again, is there any likelihood of those features returning?

They're not vital, but they were a nice feature to have.

[Dhavaer]

Well, there's that, but there's also the times when it looks like your post worked, only to come back 3 hours later and its not there.

The ones that really annoy me is when it look like it didn't work, and I come back to find I've quadruple posted. Urg.

[Ego Slayer]

See, what you need to do when it starts lagging is don't hit "submit reply" more than once!!!1!one!eleven!11!!!!1!!:smalltongue: If you just leave it the "page can not load" will come up, or it *will* post even though it still looks like it's trying. When there's only a little lag and it's not working, I can leave it for a couple minutes, close the tab, and find that is did post, and that there's only one post, not five.:smallwink:

What do you mean by lost?:smallconfused: That's really weird. Never happened to me before.

[SalSar_Thiran]

So what is the full list of shut down features as of 1:20 EST on Sunday? Seems the Calendar is down as well.

[Ego Slayer]

Calendar, Members List, Quick Reply, "Thread you posted in" Marker... I think that's all?:smallconfused:

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

+ PM pop-up notice.

[Vonriel]

Searches were lengthened, and I don't know if you can bring up a list of posts made by a person any more.

[Velvet Elvis]

Yep, you can still do that.

[Vonriel]

Ah, my mistake. I must've tried when the forums were acting up.. But, the time between searches was lengthened.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

As for the search function, wouldn't it be possible to only allow searches to be conducted (or member listings, and other high-stress actions) only when the site's load is below a certain threshold? It'd be a kind of middle-ground, that shouldn't adversely affect anything, and, I'm guessing, should be easy to arrange.
I could certainly live with that.

Oh, and don't forget to add Polls to the disabled options list.

[Quincunx]

Drop-down list of forums--first removed, still my most missed feature.

[Ego Slayer]

Dragging this thread back up for a moment...

I need to add that the A/A Editor button needs to come back at some point. It makes updating threads, like You in FB, really, really frustrating because staying organized without it is a feat in itself. I just noticed its gone...

Ego out.

EDIT: I can't even update the index because the code is bloody insane in the OPs.:smalleek:

[Santanya]

I hate to say, but the A/A button SHOULD come back to save work on the server. Now instead of being able to get the reply page (And another copy of all the thread content instead of the quick reply), you have to click the preview button, which reloads the entire page PLUS your post.

By removing the A/A and Quick reply, you've effectively tripled the bandwidth, if not more, needed for some people to make a post if they use editing...