100 posts per page~

[DarkNessX]

40 is not enough, bump it up to 100 =)

[OboeGuru]

o.O ?! That's an awful lot. Weirdo.

[mcflurry_1982]

ok uh spammage

just change your settings

[Ark-templarius]

40 per page is the maximum, so he's asking for the limit to be upped.

[mcflurry_1982]

ooops. my appologies

[Dark_Soul74]

Yeah...40 isn't that much. It is faster for people to load, but I don't like the whole, having to go to several different pages, thing.

[UndeadBastard]

Yep, BF used to have 50, I think. And I support Nessy here.

[DarkNessX]

At one point BF had 100, then bumped it back down to 40, 100 is so unf~

[Nuts]

The more results per page, the more demanding of the server. Depending on activity, this could negatively affect the site load speeds.

[DarkNessX]

Yeah... but you're going to be loading those replies probably anyway.

[AJ]

The point is, that the overall server load issues stemming from having the page views up so high, is not worth the less number of loads on the server.

40 posts per page is plenty. i might consider going to 50 as an additional option, but not 100.

[Nuts]

Yeah... but you're going to be loading those replies probably anyway.

Right, but not all at one time. Demand on the server at any given point will be greatly reduced if the user breaks up the requests into smaller blocks of 40 instead on one giant block of 100 (figuratively speaking).

Does that make sense?

[Exedore]

To further explain what Nuts said:

For example, a user could either have 40 posts/page or 100 posts/page. How many times do you actually read all 40 posts in a page of a thread? Probably not often. Most people will choose to view the first unread post, but that may require loading 20+ posts before it. Now imagine this happening with a thread that has 100 posts/page and the first unread one is in the 80's. You're forcing the server to load 80+ posts that you'll probably never look at. Compare this to 40 posts/page and you cut out at least half of the posts that need to be loaded. 100 posts per page would require the server to do about DOUBLE the work that it would normally need to do for each view of a thread.

Not to mention, how many threads are there that even have 100 posts?, let alone 40. Aside from putting an uneccessary increased load on the server when it actually has an effect, it's also pointless for many other practical reasons.

That is why we don't have 100 posts/page.

[DarkNessX]

Bah~

Ok fine, ;p

[LXM-Designs]

Woa! 100 per page? That's really way too much. 50 or 60 will be more then enough, for my likings that is...

[OboeGuru]

I suppose in favor of a continuous stream of posts it makes sense, but that's really an extreme number. I agree that 50 or 60 would be nice.

[MacG]

100 replies per page is quite alot. I have it on 40 and I barely can read all the replies because my short attention span. haha.... OooOO, birdy....

[T-Dawg]

yeah I have it on 40 as well, and it is hard to find book marks in the threads, like "oh i was on page 3.. "

[Battlecruiser]

yeah make it to 60