Page length

Post by **spanky** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:39 pm

How long do you think a page should be? How many posts per page? Longer is not always better.

~Spanky

MissNev · Post by **MissNev** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:41 pm

I have no problem with the current length. Longer is not always better, but bigger....nevermind. How do we keep the width of the message from getting out of hand? This happens on occasion.

MissNev · Post by **MissNev** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:42 pm

Or 33. Whatever.

bullD · Post by **bullD** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:47 pm

can the system recognize the last post read under a certain heading and take the user to one post later than that? that would be cool...

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:02 pm

I've long had a seperate width problem, which i"ve sort of assumed were in my computer settings.
Even when there is no such post as sparky describes, there's ~a visible inch and a half more width than there is to my screen.

Is this "normal"?

bullD · Post by **bullD** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:02 pm

spanky wrote:bullD:

I believe that is possible, but that belongs in a different thread. We're talking about page length (and now width here).

~Spanky

ok, what thread would that be?

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:09 pm

I can go with the current 42, but the reasons sparky states for 33 tickle me.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:17 pm

Long pages annoy me because I am stupid. I have my stuff set to display older first (just because that is the way I visualize things in my head, people are adding stuff after the previous person did things). That means my usualy MO is to click on the last page of a thread, use the mouse wheel to get all the way down to the end, then work my way back and any newer posts will come at the bottom. It just means I might have to scroll through a shipload of messages to get to the bottom of things.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:19 pm

geekster wrote:Long pages annoy me because I am stupid.

I'm not sure that the idiosycrycies of thought correspond with brightness or stupidity.

Ahh thread drift.! plonk me!

Post by **spanky** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:52 pm

theCryptofishist wrote:I can go with the current 42, but the reasons sparky states for 33 tickle me.

Spanky! It's "Spanky"

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:01 pm

Choice of 10, 20, 50 or 100, with reverse sort by date & author as an option.

Wind_Borne · Post by **Wind_Borne** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:52 am

Why not allow each user to set arbitrary preferences for page length and sort order (latest post first or last). Those preferences would be stored in a cookie (eplaya already uses cookies), and queried during page display. This ranks as a nice asthetic feature, but not functionally required.

Post by **spanky** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:44 am

I agree that being able to choose would be great. Right now, though, we have the option to set it globally. Doing it otherwise is a SMOP and we have bigger fish to fry in terms of programming efforts. If you can locate a preexisting MOD that does this, please let me know and we will put in on the Long List Of Things People Want Me To Do.

In the meantime, do you like 42, 33, 27 or 16?

~Spanky

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:22 pm

Choice of 10, 20, 50 or 100, with reverse sort by date & author as an option.

Agree. I especailly like the idea of the reverse order viewing.

Not sure if this was covered but am wondering if there's a way to NOT delete posts as read as happens when you exit the e-playa.

Wind_Borne · Post by **Wind_Borne** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 2:49 pm

Yes, an arbitrary page length and sort is an SMOP. If I can be of assistance with that, drop me a note.

To answer the question at hand, I think that the reason to limit page length is bandwidth. If one had infinite bandwidth (and memory) an infinite page length would be no problem. For those with DSL or broadband, a long page length is not a problem. But for our brethren on dial-up, a short page length is much better (and not much of a burden for those with high-speed connections). So in the interest of those with slow connections, I favor a short page length.

GuinivereElise · Post by **GuinivereElise** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:16 pm

okay, I've lived with the 46 for a while, and think it's too long.

just my opinion. take it with however much salt you like.

Post by **spanky** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:22 pm

That seems to be the consensus. Let's give 33 a try (the frontrunner in the poll) and see if that's too long...

ok, done. Let's try 33 on for size.

/me wonders if he can put 33.333 there...

~Spanky

GuinivereElise · Post by **GuinivereElise** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:23 pm

spanky wrote:That seems to be the consensus. Let's give 33 a try (the frontrunner in the poll) and see if that's too long...

ok, done. Let's try 33 on for size

sounds like a good idea.

bullD · Post by **bullD** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:24 pm

yeah baby, 33 inches of

eeeeek!

wrong thread!

Wind_Borne · Post by **Wind_Borne** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:06 pm

There's always one guy...

Post by **spanky** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:19 pm

There has been an offline (direct email to me) suggestion that we use a round number (like 20 or 30). 27, 33 and 42 were arbitrary numbers picked by me with absolutely no input.

I hope this individual takes my suggestion of putting forth this proposal and rationale for it into this thread.

~Spanky

bullD · Post by **bullD** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:23 pm

thirty three is good by me. (damn, I'm rhyming it today. shoulda been a rapper...)

emily sparkle · Post by **emily sparkle** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:38 pm

Wind_Borne wrote:There's always one guy...

and lately that guy has usually been BullD! *laugh*

bullD · Post by **bullD** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:49 pm

just doing my part do get it real up in here again...

as reciprocal thanks, backrubs and cold beverages will suffice, hee hee hee...

Post by **spanky** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:52 pm

drifting...drifting...

bullD · Post by **bullD** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:02 pm

oh, right, sorry.

33 posts is a fine number.

honestly, I think length would be sort of a non-issue if the system could recognize the last post read under a certain heading and take the user to one post later than that automatically when entering a thread.

GuinivereElise · Post by **GuinivereElise** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:03 pm

you know, the more I stop in here, the more annoyed I am by the lengthy pages. Even 33 seems long, now. it would be different if there was a way to see the first UNREAD post or something, but to see post 32 (the ONLY new post on a given thread), I have to wade through all 31 prior posts on the page (AND wait for them all to load).

again, just my opinion, but it's incredibly frustrating to me.

again, take with however much salt you like...

Post by **spanky** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:07 pm

Assuming that in the future there will be a "take me to the latest post" feature (which I would like as well), does 30 (or 33) seem like a good number for page length?

~Spanky

Salt makes everything taste better...

bullD · Post by **bullD** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:10 pm

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:20 pm

If you click on the little page icon on the far right next to the poster's name, it takes you to the last post made, then you can scroll up looking for the last one you read.

Page length

How many posts should be on a page?

Page length