|
Post by Adrian Jordan on Oct 21, 2016 7:11:56 GMT
Hello. As some of you have noticed, there have been some disappearing threads recently. It is not a forum glitch. We recently got a warning that the forum's attachment capacity was nearing it's maximum limit. To lower it enough that the forum will continue to operate smoothly and allow new attachments we have had to prune out a lot of old threads. Now, we're not talking a week old or a month old or even a year old, but threads that haven't been active in several years. An old thread that still receives activity will not be removed.
Another measure we are taking is going through the Classifieds and removing image and video attachments to all threads specifically marked in the title as sold. A lot of folks tend to add upwards of 10 or 20 image attachments in a sales thread, and while that is totally fine, once the item is sold we'd appreciate it if you could either remove the image/video attachments, mark the thread with SOLD or PM one of the mods and we will remove them for you. This will go a long ways towards allowing us to keep thing moving.
We do not want to remove things that are important to our members. I'm sure we will, but to help combat this please send me or one of the others links to older threads that contain subjects or attachments that are personally important to you. This will help us more intelligently prune the forum. If you are able, please go into any threads that are yours and remove what you can. As any of us who have been on here long enough to have made the last forum migration know some of us cannot access their old accounts in order to do this. By sending us the links to these threads we can again try to keep personally important content from being lost. Again, we cannot guarantee that we will see it in time to notify the others, as most of us live in separate countries and/or time zones and we don't always see something one of us has posted until some time later, but we'll try.
As of today, the set amount of allowed attachments per post has been set to six. That's not per thread, or per member or per day, just per post. You can add more attachments in following thread. However, lease try and be judicious with adding attachments for the time being.
Please try to control the size of attachments. For example, my camera takes photos that have a size of between 6 and 9mb. My computer runs Windows, and so I use Windows Paint to resize the images to 40 or 50%. I see little reduction in actual quality and physical size, but it reduces the size of the attachment from, say, 8mb to about 1mb. This isn't so much a new rule as a suggestion. I don't know how it works, most programs and computer processes are Voodoo witchcraft to me, but if you can also do this on your computer we would really appreciate it.
We're still trying to figure out the least invasive way to keep the forum from hitting a point where it can no longer move forward. We are loathe to delete old content, but if we do not then we will hit a wall where new content can no longer be added. Thank you for any help you are able to give by following the above suggestions. We do not know if this is the new norm, and if the situation changes we will report it here.
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Oct 21, 2016 9:23:53 GMT
How about removing attachments and requiring third party hosting through for instance imgur or photobucket? With some clear instructions and a trial run?
|
|
|
Post by L Driggers (fallen) on Oct 21, 2016 11:56:20 GMT
Just deleted a lot of old PM's did this help.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Oct 21, 2016 12:52:35 GMT
I am obviously public enemy #1. I've deleted some of my threads. It's too much work. Tell your data dink to just delete any thread that says David Kelly created it.
I may start over when the rules get sorted out.
I'm getting rather tired of SBG having massive heart attacks every 5 years and going into rehab. Many of us have offered to pay for the privilege to keep this place going. That has been rejected every time.
I'm not quitting. But I'm not creating threads any more. Wanna see my chit, look for me on facebook.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2016 12:54:45 GMT
SFI went through a reduction process a couple of times and their classifieds and cafe were the major trimming. There is little need to archive classifieds more than a year old and likewise in a cafe area. As for videos, any that are linked should not be an issue because the load is on that host and not SBG Loading of linked images a different issue but reduction in data size helps everyone. SFI used to have an inline uploader that would compress even very large images, with still allowing adequate dimension and containing the image size to 100kb. They recently lost that but the 100kb limit still stands. That is a real hurdle for many but there are many apps and programs to compress images. One good free download is www.onthegosoft.com/shrink_pic.htmA function that works seamlessly on your windows desktop and resizes when you upload to an external source without changing the original image size in your folders (it makes a separate resized image). The SFI coding allowed the same type of sizing on their uploader and possibly a way for SBG to be adjusted a bit. A simple addition to the uploader to make the compression automatic. To be honest, I had been taking advantage of the rather lax sizing requirements here and shaking my head about all the attachments here that are much larger than anyone's monitor size. Many needing to be reduced in a browser just to see the object. Most real cameras have a sizing option. Huge images with lots of data size are great for printing but way overkill for sharing on a discussion board. A mandatory image data size limit is in order. Blade Forum limits attachments to paying members. Both myArmoury and SFI (sadly recently f'd up) both have a data size limit for attachments. An inline routine such as shrinkpic coded into a forum uploader the ideal solution. Trimming threads should always go with the oldest inactive going first but limited to dead classifieds and social areas. As soon as a board kills old review sections, they lose a bit of what it was all about to begin with. Painfully, sections and threads such as Latest Acquisitions and Collections may be two of your largest stored image loads. more painful to threads lost for those that have their images hosted elsewhere, but then the ones most easily replaced. A repeat to point out it is not the fault of those that host images externally.
|
|
|
Post by Jussi Ekholm on Oct 21, 2016 12:57:57 GMT
I think the classified section cleanup will create a lot of free buffer to work with. So I think it is a great idea and I've seen many forums removing old sales ads.
Just checked that there are only 13 pages of For Sale ads that have been active in 2016. The For Sale section has 115 pages. I think a year should be enough time for an ad and if it is not bumped or otherwise activated during a year it is not actively being sold anymore. Keeping the only active For Sale threads going and removing threads when items get sold is in my opinion a good idea.
As lot of items that have been active during 2016 have already been sold I believe the active For Sale section could/would be around 10 pages.
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Oct 21, 2016 15:19:47 GMT
Why not remove all the old threads instead of the newer ones, that didn't have much of a page count to begin with?
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Oct 21, 2016 18:23:23 GMT
Just deleted all messages, save one, from my message board. My camera has five settings for taking photos. One does so with 300 kb of memory and is recommended for emails. It will take them up to 16 mb. For all of my work I use the lower setting because the higher settings are big time memory eaters that my drives have to contend with. Many of the photos I uploaded were less than 100 kb. Here’s an example at 56.5 kb. Being a mod on another forum I am well aware of the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Oct 21, 2016 18:27:54 GMT
Do images hosted on other sites take up attachment space? Also I agree with getting rid of the old classifieds stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2016 19:15:29 GMT
Do images hosted on other sites take up attachment space? Also I agree with getting rid of the old classifieds stuff. Quite simply, no. It is only the images that are uploaded to SBG servers that take up server space. Large images hosted elsewhere can be an issue for some with slower connections and if there are a lot of them in a given post or thread, viewing them may take time. This latter a separate issue of sever load but not storage.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 21, 2016 19:28:24 GMT
Perhaps you can reduce the max. attachment size of - now - 30 MB?
|
|
|
Post by Adrian Jordan on Oct 21, 2016 21:14:29 GMT
Right now I am actively going through the classifieds and removing the attachments from all threads marked sold. I think this will probably clear up a lot of usable space and keep us moving forward. The recent deletion of current material in the cafe section was a mistake.
I am not the IT guy, Kaizen is, or at least was the last I knew. I am not sure what we are able to institute as far as attachment uploaders or size restrictions. I think that as long as we are able to try and clean up threads of attachments that are no longer of use as we go and try to keep attachment size and numbers at a manageable size we should be okay.
It's been a while since the migration, but we are still trying to figure out our boundaries on this new forum. There's a lot of stuff that we can do that we couldn't before, but there's also some stuff that we can't. You guys have given us some solid options to chew on, and when the folks that are able to actually institute some of the changes(if possible) arrive we'll have some good stuff to tell them. For the time being please bear with us while we get the stuff we can control taken care of.
|
|
|
Post by Adrian Jordan on Oct 21, 2016 21:53:06 GMT
Do images hosted on other sites take up attachment space? Also I agree with getting rid of the old classifieds stuff. Quite simply, no. It is only the images that are uploaded to SBG servers that take up server space. Large images hosted elsewhere can be an issue for some with slower connections and if there are a lot of them in a given post or thread, viewing them may take time. This latter a separate issue of sever load but not storage. That's helpful. You've provided us with some information that we can actually work with ourselves, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Adrian Jordan on Oct 21, 2016 22:22:58 GMT
I am obviously public enemy #1. I've deleted some of my threads. It's too much work. Tell your data dink to just delete any thread that says David Kelly created it. I may start over when the rules get sorted out. I'm getting rather tired of SBG having massive heart attacks every 5 years and going into rehab. Many of us have offered to pay for the privilege to keep this place going. That has been rejected every time. I'm not quitting. But I'm not creating threads any more. Wanna see my chit, look for me on facebook. Sorry that a lot of your stuff got removed, Dave, both to you for your hard work on them and for us who enjoy your spreads. It wasn't intentional. We've removed posts from a certain date back that have not received action in some time and some of your stuff got bundled in there with them. We're getting a better idea of exactly what needs to go, but there are tens of thousands of posts to comb through.
|
|
LeMal
Member
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by LeMal on Oct 22, 2016 5:57:02 GMT
Right now I am actively going through the classifieds and removing the attachments from all threads marked sold. Bravo. Good thinking. I think this has to be the simplest and least painful first step, and a lot of bang for the buck in regards to the goal.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 22, 2016 6:06:17 GMT
And we should say thank you for your efforts and work to keep this forum running! And how's the old Jedi sayings: Sith happens!
|
|
|
Post by Adrian Jordan on Oct 22, 2016 6:18:14 GMT
No worries. This won't be as bad moving forward as it would seem. As I mentioned above, we made some big sweeps and some stuff got removed that shouldn't have but from here on out we've got a better view so that we can see less invasive paths to the goal, and now we've got the breathing room be more deliberate.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 22, 2016 7:12:36 GMT
I am obviously public enemy #1. I've deleted some of my threads. It's too much work. Tell your data dink to just delete any thread that says David Kelly created it. I may start over when the rules get sorted out. I'm getting rather tired of SBG having massive heart attacks every 5 years and going into rehab. Many of us have offered to pay for the privilege to keep this place going. That has been rejected every time. I'm not quitting. But I'm not creating threads any more. Wanna see my chit, look for me on facebook. Your attachments I believe are hosted elsewhere, so should not effect their usage much. Was sad when I looked to reference one of your reviews today to find it had gone. I guess all good things must come to an end...
|
|
|
Post by William Swiger on Oct 22, 2016 7:18:08 GMT
Again, apologies for deleting the first page of the Café which was by accident. I personally have only deleted the threads in the Moat section and some very old threads in the Café. I did not touch anything in the main forum sections. The Review Sections are off limits for sure.
Don't look at what we are doing as a major purge of anything. We have backed the crisis down to where it is a non-issue for now but need to be more active in pruning out the very old stuff which will have no impact and be transparent to the members.
We have moved forums a few times since I have been here and have accumulated hundreds of old and unused threads since 2007.
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Oct 22, 2016 8:21:32 GMT
I'd also like to request the mods to not delete stuff in the Military/Rennaissance forum, since "reviews" of antique swords are posted there instead of in the Review section.
|
|