|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Jul 26, 2005 9:45:28 GMT -5
Yes, at approximately 1440GMT the WWE Current Forum crashed. This actually happened last night during Raw as well, but it was fixed after about 5 minutes. Will the threads return? Not sure at this moment in time.
But, there is something you can do to help. There are a load of threads on here and a lot of them are repeated topics, for example "Who should be in the 2006 Hall of Fame?" appears every week. This is not a jab at anyone in particular, but please check back a few pages before starting a new thread. This not only reduces the amount of threads, but it makes it easier to moderate.
Cheers Boys and Girls.
|
|
|
Post by havik on Jul 26, 2005 9:49:07 GMT -5
My Bad I just saw you made this thread
|
|
|
Post by Deus Ex Machina on Jul 26, 2005 9:49:39 GMT -5
And, while I am no expert or techinical wiz, I bet, less threads = less crashes.
Just a theory.
|
|
|
Post by Lenny: Smooth like Keith Stone on Jul 26, 2005 10:04:46 GMT -5
Here's a friendly suggestion. As one of the (few) resident Snitsky fans here on the forum, I will admit that I don't think Snitsky needs a 70 page thread. I think these 70 pages could be freed up and used for other topics instead. I do realize that in early 2005, there were a million threads about various Snitsky-related things. However now that he's been around for a while and the novelty of a baby-punting wrestler has worn off, I really don't feel that Snitsky would generate any more traffic than any other popular wrestler on the WWE roster. Hell, the Boogeyman hasn't even debuted yet and he gets more posts than most other wrestlers! Another concern will undoubtedly be "But what about all the Hail Snitskys that will infect our board?" My answer is to simply not allow it. Now I'll admit that I have posted Hail Snitsky a few times in his all-purpose thread. But I only did it because the thread was there. If there was no such thread, I would not have spammed another thread with it. That's my opinion.
|
|
Bhester
Dennis Stamp
DAMN!
Posts: 4,137
|
Post by Bhester on Jul 26, 2005 10:19:38 GMT -5
I agree with Lenny. Snitsky doesn't deserve his own thread. He deserves to job.
|
|
|
Post by hbkismyherostill on Jul 26, 2005 10:27:05 GMT -5
Agreed on the snitsky thing, and I guess the hoochie thread....wait snitsky needs to go.
|
|
|
Post by Lenny: Smooth like Keith Stone on Jul 26, 2005 10:37:51 GMT -5
And just to clarify, I'm not saying that we should never discuss Snitsky on the forum. I just think that we'll create threads for him as news items arise, and let them live the normal life-cycle of a thread. It just seems wasteful to have 70 pages of a thread, when probably 65 of them are never even looked at.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2005 10:53:34 GMT -5
It has nothing to do with how many threads there are. It has to to with how much traffic the board gets when Raws on. It's like how if you had alot of electrical appliances it wouldn't cause a fuse to blow, but if you turned them all on at the same time it would.
More than anything, it's just the fact that proboards sucks.
|
|
|
Post by vitamink on Jul 26, 2005 11:11:42 GMT -5
It has to do with forum traffic, and the fact that you have NO limits on how many/what type of sigs we have. When almost every member has 4 .gifs in his sig, it really slows everything down. The number of threads has nothing to do with it.
|
|
The Angel
Team Rocket
I'm the Son of Rage and Love
Posts: 886
|
Post by The Angel on Jul 26, 2005 11:12:59 GMT -5
I don't know, maybe it could be because the newest craze is to try to make 70 pages in the RAW thread regarding posts that don't have anything to do with RAW or even wrestling...methinks the board has a hard time handling all that traffic
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Jul 26, 2005 11:13:06 GMT -5
We can do something about the number of pics in a sig. It is against the rules here.
|
|
|
Post by screwtape on Jul 26, 2005 11:16:01 GMT -5
It has to be the surges in traffic. Offtopic has a lot more posts then any other section, and it doesn't crash with the same regularity.
|
|
|
Post by vitamink on Jul 26, 2005 11:17:59 GMT -5
We can do something about the number of pics in a sig. It is against the rules here. Yeah. It'll require more policing, but in the end it will help out. I feel sorry for anybody who uses dial-up and comes here, it's almost impossible to load.
|
|
The Angel
Team Rocket
I'm the Son of Rage and Love
Posts: 886
|
Post by The Angel on Jul 26, 2005 11:20:24 GMT -5
I'm all for more policing, this place is like a zoo sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by screwtape on Jul 26, 2005 11:27:42 GMT -5
I'm all for more policing, this place is like a zoo sometimes. Yeah, don't people realize a message board based on a website on the worst gimmicks in wrestling has important views on world policy? Too much fun going on around here, dammit! More debate on Swiss neutrality! Save the rainforest!
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Jul 26, 2005 11:28:38 GMT -5
You do know that you can select to turn off sigs and avatars don't you?
|
|
|
Post by vitamink on Jul 26, 2005 11:31:23 GMT -5
You do know that you can select to turn off sigs and avatars don't you? Yeah, I know. But the overabundance of .gifs in sigs is still draining the board as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Lenny: Smooth like Keith Stone on Jul 26, 2005 11:46:15 GMT -5
I agree that the animated gifs do use a lot more bandwidth than you would think. I used to use an animated Lance Storm avatar, and the file size was 250K. The one I use now -- a single jpeg -- is about 7K. I think that rather than imposing a image count limit, we could impose a filesize/bandwidth limit instead.
|
|
|
Post by screwtape on Jul 26, 2005 11:49:49 GMT -5
I notice you can go back over a hundred pages. Why not limit the 'history' to 50 pages? There's half your load right there. Who really needs to read four month old posts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2005 12:14:43 GMT -5
It's not the sigs either. They are all hosted on different websites, so it effects their bandwidth, not this boards.
|
|