Page length

[spanky]

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

~Spanky

[MissNev]

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]

Or 33. Whatever.

[bullD]

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]

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]

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]

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

[geekster]

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]

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!

[spanky]

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

Spanky! It's "Spanky"

[Bob]

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

[Wind_Borne]

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.

[spanky]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[spanky]

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]

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]

yeah baby, 33 inches of eeeeek!

wrong thread!

[Wind_Borne]

There's always one guy...

[spanky]

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]

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

[emily sparkle]

There's always one guy...

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

[bullD]

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

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

[spanky]

drifting...drifting...

[bullD]

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]

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...

[spanky]

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]

30

[Ranger Genius]

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.