ASF Site Performance

[Country Lad]

And it's not just the multiquote problem either, viz

Likely not an issue for Joe. The internet has apparently been having intermittent problems for about an hour, especially some Telstra sites. My Pulse wasn't responding and I couldn't place an order - had to phone it through because it wass quicker. Another forum I was on would not intermittently respond.

Cheers
Country Lad

 

[Country Lad]

On the issue of website performance, has anyone who has been experiencing issues with slow page loading times noticed an improvement since "New Posts" was changed back to the old system yesterday?

No difference at all either way Joe, and nor should it. As I said before there it is highly unlikely there is any correlation between performance and the "New Posts". If anything. there should be a minuscule, non-noticeable increase in speed for the new system as the server handles less posts.

Cheers
Country Lad

 

[nulla nulla]

I will sometimes copy and paste a long post into a text file just in case something goes wrong when I submit it. That way I can just copy it back and try again, although I am finding that I am doing this less now that the auto save feature automatically saves your posts as you compose them.

The multiquote feature makes responding to multiple posts relatively simple but some still find it easier to format longer posts containing several quotes in a word processor or a text editor such as Wordpad before copying it back into the post editor when it is ready to submit.

On the issue of website performance, has anyone who has been experiencing issues with slow page loading times noticed an improvement since "New Posts" was changed back to the old system yesterday?

Yeah the "auto save" facility works well. But it is useless when you can't load the post. Several times I had to reload windows explorer, log back into the ASF stite, open the thread, initate the "reply to thread" option, open the "saved content" of a post previuosly prepared and then experience the same problem with loading the post to the thread. Kind of frustrating to say the least.

Touch wood, all post since the reversion have gone through smoothly.

- - - Updated - - -

No difference at all either way Joe, and nor should it. As I said before there it is highly unlikely there is any correlation between performance and the "New Posts". If anything. there should be a minuscule, non-noticeable increase in speed for the new system as the server handles less posts.

Cheers
Country Lad

Smooth as... Even the laptop cpu is running at idle speed rather than going into overdrive. Everytime I open the site it loads with a minimum of fuss and the only posts in the "new post" page are those posted since I last accessed the site. If I want to go back to an earlier posts I can access it through the "quick Links" menu then through "Todays Posts".

Cheers and thanks.

 

[Julia]

No Julia, think about it. The issue you have is losing a long post - somehow it doesn't post and it it lost.

This is a common issue with all forums. It could be the fact that as you submit the reply, someone else is submitting at the same time in the same thread (the most common cause).

Or there is a hiccup with your ISP or with the forum server or the sun is setting, or NSW has won the SOO, or any of those odd reasons that posts are lost. Then you need to start all over again.

I have never had this happen in any other forum and I participate in quite a few. Also it has only been in recent weeks.

Safest way is to use the multiple quotes in the reply as normal so your reply now has them all. Copy and paste it to Word, then type your responses in between the quotes the same way as you would in the reply. When finished, copy from Word. Then in the reply window, highlight all those quotes (everthing) and paste.

This over-writes all those quotes, there is your complete response and all the multi quotes are unclicked. If the post doesn't go through (as can happen (often) you still have it in Word. Then just open the "Reply to Thread" window (that is not with the quotes) and paste again from Word.

OK, that's reasonable, but to have to do that seems to negate the whole purpose of the simplicity of the multiquote facility plus the autosave which doesn't , in this instance, seem to autosave at all.

I will sometimes copy and paste a long post into a text file just in case something goes wrong when I submit it. That way I can just copy it back and try again, although I am finding that I am doing this less now that the auto save feature automatically saves your posts as you compose them.

That's when the auto save works. If you get frozen and have to log off and log on again, sometimes even having to reboot before so doing, it's all lost.

On the issue of website performance, has anyone who has been experiencing issues with slow page loading times noticed an improvement since "New Posts" was changed back to the old system yesterday?

Yes, absolutely. It is now fine, entirely up to that for other sites.

Likely not an issue for Joe. The internet has apparently been having intermittent problems for about an hour, especially some Telstra sites. My Pulse wasn't responding and I couldn't place an order - had to phone it through because it wass quicker. Another forum I was on would not intermittently respond.

Funny then that ASF is absolutely the only site where I have had any problem whatsoever.
I wonder why you are so apparently determined to disbelieve the reality of a described experience.

Yeah the "auto save" facility works well. But it is useless when you can't load the post. Several times I had to reload windows explorer, log back into the ASF stite, open the thread, initate the "reply to thread" option, open the "saved content" of a post previuosly prepared and then experience the same problem with loading the post to the thread. Kind of frustrating to say the least.

Exactly.

Touch wood, all post since the reversion have gone through smoothly.

My experience also. Much relief, thank you Joe.

 

[Country Lad]

I wonder why you are so apparently determined to disbelieve the reality of a described experience.

Because I don't experience it.

Cheers
Country Lad

 

[pixel]

I will sometimes copy and paste a long post into a text file just in case something goes wrong when I submit it. That way I can just copy it back and try again, although I am finding that I am doing this less now that the auto save feature automatically saves your posts as you compose them.

The multiquote feature makes responding to multiple posts relatively simple but some still find it easier to format longer posts containing several quotes in a word processor or a text editor such as Wordpad before copying it back into the post editor when it is ready to submit.

On the issue of website performance, has anyone who has been experiencing issues with slow page loading times noticed an improvement since "New Posts" was changed back to the old system yesterday?

Hi Joe,
I've had to compose longer texts, then copy-paste, in other Fora; never in ASF because speed hasn't been an issue with your site. Yes, I've noticed the Auto-save function popping up every so often, but I have never had reason to use it either; wouldn't even know how to manually retrieve it if I ever were to need it.

As far as the "New Posts" feature is concerned, I prefer the way it's reverted to right now. But that's from a purely functionality point of view. Seeing 6 or 7 pages of "recent, but unread" posts didn't make me really browse back because I don't have that much spare time anyway. If I see a post of interest on the first page, I open it and maybe add my tuppence worth. Then it's in my subscription list and I find out at night whether there's something new. (One benefit of living in the West: For me it's only 10pm when you send out the midnight mails )

One other issue concerned the fact that, once I had added a comment to a post that appeared on one of those 7 pages, it no longer showed on the list because I had read it. Makes it awkward to look back and check when an afterthought crops up a little later. The way it's now, I find much better: "recent" really means recent, and all posts are listed in time order.

 

[Country Lad]

Seeing 6 or 7 pages of "recent, but unread" posts didn't make me really browse back because I don't have that much spare time anyway.

Pixel, when you are finished on the forum and have not had an interest in some topics, do you not click "Mark Forums Read"? The next time you log in to the site it will show only the new posts which should be only a page or 2 of only new posts as long as you are going to the bookmarked page for "New Posts".

Cheers
Country Lad

 

[pixel]

Pixel, when you are finished on the forum and have not had an interest in some topics, do you not click "Mark Forums Read"? The next time you log in to the site it will show only the new posts which should be only a page or 2 of only new posts as long as you are going to the bookmarked page for "New Posts".

Cheers
Country Lad

Thanks Mate
No, I didn't. Not just because it would be a lie (I hadn't read them all), but also because I never know when I'm finished.

... plus: I didn't know that function existed

 

[Julia]

Because I don't experience it.

Cheers
Country Lad

Cheers
Julia

 

[bigdog]

[NEW POSTS] now displays new posts since I accessed ASF late this morning just prior to 11:17 AM
-- lists only nine posts dating back to 11:17 AM this morning

[NEW POSTS] no longer displays all the new posts that I have not read which use to date back a several days!!
-- I only read a few items of interest!!

Earlier today [NEW POSTS] listed only one new posting!!



The threads below have not been updated since your last visit or since forums have been marked read.

does below all have been marked read!!
-- I did not read many of these items



John

 

[pixel]

Hey bigdog;

I've always used Today's Posts under Quick Links.
That gives me a manageable two pages, and the threads I've read are still listed in faded colour.

 

[Julia]

Hey bigdog;

I've always used Today's Posts under Quick Links.
That gives me a manageable two pages, and the threads I've read are still listed in faded colour.

+1. Works well.

 

[nulla nulla]

+1. Works well.

+2, works well. I appreciate the posts already read showing as faded. saves going back into them and also acts as a mark of where you got up to when reading through the list of new posts.

 

[coolcup]

It seems, however, that pleasing one infrequent poster may possibly be causing considerable difficulties for others.

Wow. That's just plain rude.

I never advocated for the change so I didn't see it as "pleasing" me as you have so patronisingly put it. I just made a suggestion as a new user to a forum I have never come across. So typical of some older forums to have old in the tooth users being just plain rude to new users. How is that sort of post meant to encourage me to post or participate? But I guess that's what you'd probably prefer.

 

[Julia]

Wow. That's just plain rude.

I never advocated for the change so I didn't see it as "pleasing" me as you have so patronisingly put it. I just made a suggestion as a new user to a forum I have never come across. So typical of some older forums to have old in the tooth users being just plain rude to new users. How is that sort of post meant to encourage me to post or participate? But I guess that's what you'd probably prefer.

I sincerely apologise if you took offence at what I intended as just a factual comment, in that you are an infrequent poster, you suggested the change, and several of us - after it was implemented - experienced some really frustrating difficulties which appear now to have been resolved.

As my comment was absolutely not intended to offend, the same cannot be said for your response which is a piece of clearly personally directed rudeness.

 

[coolcup]

I sincerely apologise if you took offence at what I intended as just a factual comment, in that you are an infrequent poster, you suggested the change, and several of us - after it was implemented - experienced some really frustrating difficulties which appear now to have been resolved.

As my comment was absolutely not intended to offend, the same cannot be said for your response which is a piece of clearly personally directed rudeness.

Hmm, my response is "clearly personally directed rudeness" is it? Let's apply your own logic to my statement which was also intended as a "factual comment" to use your words.

Wow. That's just plain rude.

That is what I thought. Factual.

I never advocated for the change so I didn't see it as "pleasing" me as you have so patronisingly put it. I just made a suggestion as a new user to a forum I have never come across.

Again, factual. I suggested a change which was adopted. I then said I liked the change. I never demanded the change be made. In fact my earliest post on the matter was simply to ask if there was a setting I could change in my control panel to get the forum to work the way I am used to without affecting others. Joe decided to make the change global. I have attached a link if you would like to verify this. https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4039&p=776320&viewfull=1#post776320

So typical of some older forums to have old in the tooth users being just plain rude to new users.

I suspect this statement offended you the most. Again, to me this is factual. You have nearly 15,000 posts, are probably one of the most regular contributors to this forum (as far as I have seen) and have been around since 2005 according to your profile. Just like you said I am an infrequent poster, I am making a statement of fact that you are an "old hand" when it comes to posting in this forum.

And my belief is quality over quantity, but each to their own. And, to be clear, I don't mean to be saying that your posts are not quality. More I am explaining why I might appear an infrequent poster.

How is that sort of post meant to encourage me to post or participate? But I guess that's what you'd probably prefer

I found it odd that you would intimate that the change to the forum was made for an "infrequent poster" such as myself. I never asked for the change to be global, I only wanted to know if there was a setting that I could change for myself. My understanding was that Joe understood the logic of the way other forums were structured and therefore tried to trial the change. Since the change was made global, yes I was happy and you made your preferences clear that you hated it equally as much as I liked it. Each to their own, but again, factual. To say that the change was made to please an infrequent poster is personally directed at me and actually factually incorrect as I never asked for a global change to be made.

So, I am sorry if you felt offended by my reply, but I was only replying on a similar factual basis as you were and my points were not intended to be any more "personally directed rudeness" than I felt was aimed at me.

 

[Julia]

I am making a statement of fact that you are an "old hand" when it comes to posting in this forum.

There was no reference to being an 'old hand' which may indeed be factual.
What you actually said was:

So typical of some older forums to have old in the tooth users being just plain rude to new users.

Making assumptions about age and generalisation about attitude to new users.

Btw I didn't 'hate the change'. Didn't matter to me one way or the other as I always used "Today's Posts'" via "Quick Links" anyway. I simply responded to Nulla Nulla's suggestion that the timing of page loading problems several of us were experiencing coincided with the change and agreed with his request for the change to be reversed to see if it seemed to resolve the problem.
So far it does.

I won't be further responding on this, coolcup.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

There was no reference to being an 'old hand' which may indeed be factual.
What you actually said was:


Making assumptions about age and generalisation about attitude to new users.

Btw I didn't 'hate the change'. Didn't matter to me one way or the other as I always used "Today's Posts'" via "Quick Links" anyway. I simply responded to Nulla Nulla's suggestion that the timing of page loading problems several of us were experiencing coincided with the change and agreed with his request for the change to be reversed to see if it seemed to resolve the problem.
So far it does.

I won't be further responding on this, coolcup.

So are we back to the old way?

I agree with your comments about generalisations on older posters, Julia.

It is so good though to have such scintillating non-judgemental opinions from new posters such as those you refer to Julia.

Let us see how they fare through the next crash.

So am I correct in thinking that if I click on "New Posts" I will actually see "New Posts" ?

gg

 

[sails]

...So am I correct in thinking that if I click on "New Posts" I will actually see "New Posts" ?

gg

I think you will get both new posts and posts you have read. Too bad if you get interrupted, the system marks all as read after a short time and then you have to try and remember where you were up to in any unread threads which then show as read threads.

Due to interruptions my end I preferred the new way with the alternative of option of clicking on "quick links" if I wanted to see something I had already read. But it seems that has caused a glitch for those wanting to post very long posts with a heap of multi quotes.

So we are back to the horse and buggy agin! Oh well...

 

[coolcup]

There was no reference to being an 'old hand' which may indeed be factual.
What you actually said was:


Making assumptions about age and generalisation about attitude to new users.

Btw I didn't 'hate the change'. Didn't matter to me one way or the other as I always used "Today's Posts'" via "Quick Links" anyway. I simply responded to Nulla Nulla's suggestion that the timing of page loading problems several of us were experiencing coincided with the change and agreed with his request for the change to be reversed to see if it seemed to resolve the problem.
So far it does.

I won't be further responding on this, coolcup.

Hi Julia

I apologise. On reflection, I think I reacted far too harshly in the first place. Having read your post above I now understand where you were coming from and think I completely misunderstood the context of your post. I am sorry for responding in a needlessly harsh manner and hope you can forgive me. I will understand if you do not wish to respond but I would like to apologise nonetheless.