# testing 50 threads per page



## mkellogg

So far so good!  If everything works well, we will stick with it.

Let me know if you have any problems.

Mike


----------



## Sidjanga

Sorry to say that, but I feel lost and find it really hard to orientate myself  on those immense pages.


----------



## ERASMO_GALENO

Great news, Mike!


----------



## fenixpollo

Sorry it's not working for you, Sigianga.    Maybe if you could tell us what makes it difficult for you, we could find a solution. 

One possible fix is to go to your *User Control Panel*, click *Edit Options*, and change the *Number of Posts to Show Per Page* option.

The new look is great for the higher-traffic forums, because new questions stay on the first page longer -- and therefore, they get more attention.

Thanks, Mike!


----------



## JeSuisSnob

I don't use to walk through this southern lands of WR, but I'm here to say that I prefer 20 threads per page. 

This is the first time I adress directly to you, big boss Mike Kellogg! 

Regards.


----------



## Jana337

fenixpollo said:


> Sorry it's not working for you, Sigianga.    Maybe if you could tell us what makes it difficult for you, we could find a solution.
> 
> One possible fix is to go to your *User Control Panel*, click *Edit Options*, and change the *Number of Posts to Show Per Page* option.


This won't help. The number of posts per page is independent of the number of threads per page. Mike could perhaps add an option so that people who are uncomfortable with the new look can go back to the old settings. But I don't know whether it is technically possible. 

And maybe it is just a question of habit - e.g. you can get uneasy when your favorite journal changes its layout but you get used to it after a few weeks and wouldn't want to have the old version back.


----------



## panjandrum

It's a bit like swimming in very deep water.
I have an irrational fear that there are bigger, hungrier monsters down there.
Apart from that, it's fine by meee .....arggghhhh.......


----------



## TimLA

It's nice on a computer, a bit unwieldy on my Blackberry, but what the heck...let's keep it!

Question: Is the issue processor time, or cache, or a hardware issue?


----------



## coquis14

mkellogg said:


> So far so good! If everything works well, we will stick with it.
> 
> Let me know if you have any problems.
> 
> Mike


But Mike... Correct me if I'm wrong : You tried this , a couple of month ago , and it did not fulfill your expectations.

Regards,


----------



## brian

TimLA said:


> Question: Is the issue processor time, or cache, or a hardware issue?



What "issue," Tim?


----------



## TimLA

brian8733 said:


> What "issue," Tim?


 
As mentioned by Coquis, Mike had tried the longer pages a few months ago, 
but had to abandon them for some technical reasons.
I was just curious if the recent upgrades had changed the system to make the longer pages more manageable.


----------



## brian

Oh I see... so you meant past issue. I would have expected "What *was* the issue..." 

semantics...


----------



## mkellogg

I tried it in January.  There were problems then but I didn't know if they were due to this or something else, so I put it off till now.

I guess there are two main criteria to see if it stays:
1. The server can handle the load (so far so good)
2. You all like it. 

I know we can't please everybody unless vB decides to give you the option in the near future like you have with posts-per-page.


----------



## Valeria Mesalina

Sigianga said:


> Sorry to say that, but I feel lost and find it really hard to orientate myself  on those immense pages.



You´re not the only one. I feel lost too.

Oh well, as Jana337 says, we´ll get used to it.


----------



## Loob

I'm ashamed to say I hadn't even noticed....

But now I have, I like it


----------



## brian

Loob said:


> I'm ashamed to say I hadn't even noticed....



This doesn't surprise me. I would imagine (because it's generally the case for me) that most people have no real need to ever scroll down to the bottom of the screen, so it doesn't really _matter_ whether more is added down there or not--you'll only see it if you keep scrolling.

So I wouldn't have thought that people would feel lost or overwhelmed since they can still hover at the top without ever needing to scroll down into the depths of the 50 threads.


----------



## Loob

No, I do scroll down the page, Brian, and in the past have often looked at page 2, and sometimes page 3 as well, to see if there are intriguing or unanswered threads.

I won't have to go to the effort of changing pages now, or at least not as often...

Did I hear someone mutter 'lazy cow'?


----------



## Valeria Mesalina

brian8733 said:


> This doesn't surprise me. I would imagine (because it's generally the case for me) that most people have no real need to ever scroll down to the bottom of the screen, so it doesn't really _matter_ whether more is added down there or not--you'll only see it if you keep scrolling.
> 
> So I wouldn't have thought that people would feel lost or overwhelmed since they can still hover at the top without ever needing to scroll down into the depths of the 50 threads.



I have always scrolled down to the bottom in search of unanswered threads... and went to page two, page three, page four just in case.

It was a shock to scroll down, and scroll down, and keep scrolling down and not seeing the end of the page!

Er... am I lazy cow number two?


----------



## brian

Oh ok, I must be the odd (or ocd?) one then: I scroll down, but when I get to the bottom I refresh my page and scroll back up, and if there are still no unanswered threads, I change pages from the top. 

I sort of assumed that most people changed pages at the top and not the bottom. Oops.


----------

