Here's what I found regarding the site-wide thread issues, submitted without comment so I don't get my @$$ banned:
Highlighting is mine
- Tim
As part of our programme to improve pageload speed we decided to try all avenues even if in theory there should be no benefit. I completely agree that splitting long threads, in theory, has no possible benefit. This is obvious when you know how it all works. However theory does not always transfer into practice and therefore I am always open to ideas that in theory cannot work - we will still try them. It's just possible that for some reason there might be an effect - even if it all depends, in the end, on a user's PC.
We normally try anything risky on a test server but sometimes for one reason or another we use it live. It might also be a good idea to see if it actually works for anyone before we decide to see if it gets left on. You have to test it live to find that out. Already we have numerous reports that it has magically speeded-up pageload times on long threads - so there you go!
Before the thread splitter goes back on, many of its settings probably need changing. For example the 'Guest' name is not satisfactory and it needs an explanation. I also don't like the way the original post gets to be the first post again in each part - the second post is good enough to be the new second-part starter (with a little adjustment).
Hmm...
The thread splitter will most likely go back on, because some people said they had an improvement - and that is all we are trying to do. Also, no one has come in and said, "This has wrecked my threads/forum/life". We will wait, though, to see if there are any negative issues that have to be addressed. We need to look at several split threads in different locations and see what the result is.
However there are all sorts of issues with it that we can see, now it's been trialled:
- Exactly what figure to set it at. If indeed it works at all (about which there will always be arguments no matter what happens), setting it too high would be a waste of time, and setting it too low will cause too much disruption. It looks as if 2,000 might be a good compromise number: 200 pages of default thread size. No one will be inconvenienced if a thread is split into 200-page parts.
- The name of the 'splitter admin' or whoever it is the makes the first post in the new part is 'Guest', and that's not too goodIt needs another ID.
- The first post in the subsequent parts is currently the first post in the thread, and I don't think this is a great idea. It could be left off, and just have the: 'This is Part 2, here is the link to Part 1' post - this would be enough. This will require a re-code but it shouldn't be too hard to fix this.
There is some fixing to do before it goes back on for trial #2. Then the fun will start.
Highlighting is mine
- Tim
