View previous topic | View next topic

Important Announcement

Page 3 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

627853.  Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:29 pm Reply with quote

Oh! o_@ How come?

627857.  Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:32 pm Reply with quote

I think mine was about the posters who had made 0 posts, of which there is quite a few. I forget the response exactly.

627860.  Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:34 pm Reply with quote

Maybe it's because, y'know, after a few years away they might desperately want to come + make a couple of posts, but don't fancy havign to re-register just for THAT...

627870.  Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:39 pm Reply with quote

I used to belong to a few forums where your poster was deleted if you didn't log in within 6 months...

627887.  Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:48 pm Reply with quote

Seems sensible to me... *shrug*

627897.  Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:03 pm Reply with quote

Neotenic wrote:
Yes - but of the three on that thread, can you really imagine Stephen reading out the answers on the show? That's the acid test for me in this respect.

And your debates on WFHIT are....?

627943.  Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:21 pm Reply with quote

They certainly throw up more in the way of facts. Just off the top of my head I'm thinking of constitutional arrangements in the event of another Gunpowder Plot, oddities of the US election system, age of consent laws, and so on - which crop up in the course of things. Which useful facts appear in "say something ..." and its ilk?

On the old threads notion, what that would achieve would be to lose older threads discussing factual matters (often the best discussion anywhere on the 'net) and preserve ones about what the weather is like as they get updated more often because - amazingly - the weather is different in different places and times.

Finally, persons with zero posts are taking up exactly how much space on the database? Or those who post infrequently but on more obscure topics? Who have perhaps a few hundred over several years as opposed to a few thousand pointless ones over several months - or weeks!

627960.  Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:53 pm Reply with quote

Quickly on a couple of the things raised here.

It is not necessarily the case that a thread with no replies, or a thread which hasn't been posted to for two years isn't interesting, nor yet that it isn't of value to the QI Project. I'm aware that questions for the show have been taken from two year old postings with no replies.

For precisely this reason, we don't delete anything from (for instance) General Banter without reading it first. That takes time, and to be perfectly frank it's not, for the most part, a riveting task.

Nin gives one good reason why there's little to be gained by deleting users purely because they have made no posts; exnihilo gives another. Technically it would be very easy to do, but wouldn't achieve much. That said, more than half of new people who sign up for these forums do so only in order to post (or attempt to post) spam; those people do get deleted. That deletion is mainly Jenny's job at present, and it takes her plenty longer than the zero hours per month she gets paid for!

627961.  Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:56 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
Posital wrote:
With a trillion bytes (10^12) costing about 70 - can't imagine why disk space is a problem.

Disk space isn't really a problem. I'm sure it would be trivial to find another hosting provider for a similar price that gave us a larger disk allocation. However, the main problem here is database size. Any provider hosting a large number of databases for a wide variety of clients will need to have fairly strict regulations to make sure they don't just spiral out of control and ruin the hosting for everyone.

Pish posh - absolute bunkum. Not sure who fed you this line. They are called database management systems (DBMS) for a reason. They're designed for this.
The only strict regulations (apart from standard storage management) would be to ensure security.

627969.  Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:04 pm Reply with quote

And, of course, monthly bandwidth limits. You have have as many billions of terabytes of storage you like, but if you've got the usual sort of caps on your bandwidth they're of little use. Anyway, as nobody is volunteering to cough up to run the whole thing, whether it's bunk or not is totally beside the point.

phpBB also suffers various issues when the databases get enormous, the search support can become almost as large as the database itself.

627976.  Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:13 pm Reply with quote

Fairy nuff...

627991.  Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:38 pm Reply with quote

But then, I'm not the management, nor am I related to anyone in the management, nor have anything to do with the management (except in the general space-lizard way), so all of that is purely my own opinion.

628025.  Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:41 pm Reply with quote

And your debates on WFHIT are....?

Aw, did you get so upset by that you forgot to read the rest of my post? Where I said the posts I'd be precious about are very small in number?

As it happens, when I find myself framing a point of view in a way that I'm particularly keen on, I do have a habit of saving it down onto my PC anyway - so from a personal point of view, I wouldn't be losing much. It's nice to be able to look back and see the many and various ways I've been called a nincompoop over the years, and how my opinions have changed (I know, I'm as surprised as you are) but I doubt I'd feel particularly aggreived.

And anyway, I defy you to read the Race To the White House thread or the Should Bankers Be Handed Down Like Dogs one, to name just a couple, and not learn something interesting or surprising. I know I did.

I don't think it's too harsh to say that it's a damn sight more interesting than 5,000 posts of 'ban austin for being vapid', or whatever.

But, if I'm reading dr bob's post right, nobody's being stopped from playing 'games', it's just all the previous 'turns' will disappear. If you really, really want to use this glorious tool called the internet to trade one-liners into infinity, I need only direct you to the 'post new topic' button.

628053.  Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:25 pm Reply with quote

Aw! I mourn the loss of Twisty Qing Qong!

I knew I should have been here more often!

Nonetheless, if it keeps the rest of the forum going then I suppose it is a good thing in some ways.

628129.  Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:15 am Reply with quote

NinOfEden wrote:
Wouldn't it be less... disappointing(?) if you just deleted any topics on any forum that hadn't been replied to for, say, 6 months, + deleted any users that hadn't posted for a similar length of time? + maybe prune topics that had over an agreed number of pages?

As others have pointed out, older topics are not necessarily less interesting. In fact, given that the forum started out with pretty much only elves posting to it, it's more likely that older topics will be considerably more interesting than newer ones.

As for users not posting, we have had users who have left for a long time and come back. garrick92, for instance, is an elf of long standing, yet he posted nothing to the site between Apr 23, 2007 and Oct 23, 2007. If he had come back and found that his account had been deleted, I doubt he'd've been best pleased and we may have lost his subsequent contributions. He hasn't posted anything here since January, but there's always a chance he might come back.

austinallegro wrote:
I asked about that regarding users a few months ago, and it twere a no.

The major problem with deleting users is that it just doesn't save us very much space. All of the users currently registered take up a grand total of 3Mb of disk space. By contrast, the text of the posts take up a rather more meaty 155Mb. If you're wanting to make significant reductions, it's pretty clear which bit needs tackling.


Page 3 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group