100 Posts per page?

[timwhit]

How many posts does everyone think should be displayed by default?

I think 50 is somewhat limiting. 100 would suit me fine.

Some on dialup might think that displaying that many posts by default would slow things down too much.

I doubt bandwidth would be an issue at this point. Considering there aren't too many users at the moment. It can always be changed back later if it ever does become an issue.

[Tannin]

I voted for 50, but I could live with 100 no problem. More than that would be a real pain though. As, for that matter, would 25. My ideal length would be about 70 or 80.

[timwhit]

Tannin, you can't have 70 or 80. Don't you see that those choices were not included in the poll :)

But if you really think about it 80 is not too much different from 100.

Hopefully in phpBB 2.2 we will be able to specify in our profiles the number of posts per page, just like back in the day with Jive.

[Tannin]

On the other hand, 70 is not too much different from 50. :)

[timwhit]

BLAHHHHH

[CougTek]

I prefer 100 posts per page, but I chose 50 because you asked by default and I don't think our forum would be 56K modem friendly with a default setting of 100 posts per page.

[Buck]

50

[Mercutio]

I, the slow connection guy, voted for unlimited.

Why? Because I'd rather view a thread in its entirety than just the most recent X commencts. I'd rather minimize the number of pages I have to load than the amount of data I have to download on a discussion site like SF.

[Tannin]

Hmmm... I see that the average of the votes is 75. :)

[timwhit]

How exactly did you average this vote?

(50*4 + 100*3 + infinity) / 8 = infinity

How did you do your math Tannin?

[Mercutio]

Does that mean I win? :)

[timwhit]

I wish it did.

[timwhit]

So no one else has an opinion on this? Only 9 votes? Come on people, vote!

[Clocker]

100.

[CougTek]

I'm one of those who voted for 50, but only because I had sympathy for people on dialup. Since Mercutio doesn't seem to care, I would change my vote from 50 to 100, which would bring the actual result to 4 against 6 in favor of going for 100 posts per page.

I say we do it and we wait for complains if there's any. Otherwise, nothing will change.

[Bartender]

80

[Clocker]

How can we quantify the actual difference in typical load time for a typical 2,400 bps connection like Merc has?

C

[Mercutio]

Simple: no matter what I do, it takes too long. That's why I have so many computers; I can go look at the other stuff that loaded on machines I was using earlier in the day. :)

[Handruin]

I've set the forum to list 100 replies per post, but now I have to ask why?

After looking through each forum section, I've counter only 3 topics that make it over 50 replies. I did not include any topic that has made it to the second page of 50 topics, only the first 50 topics I looked at.

So out of 50 topics per each forum section, I roughly count 3 topics containing over 50 replies. One of which is over 100 (apology to china, go figure) and the genome thread.

Are we really gaining anything here, or is this planning for the future? I've notice a longer page generation time on the few threads over 50, but nothing annoying being on a fast connection.

Let me know what others experience and we can go from there...

[timwhit]

I know that there aren't that many threads with over 50 posts now. But, I assume that there will be eventually. So yes it is planning for the future.

[CougTek]

I know that there aren't that many threads with over 50 posts now. But, I assume that there will be eventually. So yes it is planning for the future.ditto

Unless there's a significant impact on the performances of the server, I think it will worth it with the time.