for the record, I DID turn off the auto archiving utility ... and greatly apologize for its ineffeciency. The manual archive works properly and you shouldn't see that same sort of problem.

By Anatomist1 on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 11:24 pm: Edit

Couldn't you just pass the jar, and increase the bandwidth somehow? Have a pledge drive? I'm not exactly loaded, but I'd be willing to pitch in. You know, from each according to his ability...

K.

By Admin on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 09:35 pm: Edit

oh, and yes ... it is important. the increasing bandwidth might have the negative effect of putting me outa business. this place is hopping. and its the long threads that are doing me in. this is now the most frequently loaded set of pages on the site. bypassing the smut pages, which says alot.

i've gone over my daily quota several times in the past month and my only other alternatives is to do a manual archive every 15 days, and to remove the images and backgrounds. which is what I will be doing.

By Admin on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 04:40 pm: Edit

gah, sorry. work and all that.

ok, its obviously not working the way it should. and I see no way of fixing it.

will just have to do a general archive every 15 days or so ...

thanks for your patience!!!

By Bob_chong on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 02:09 pm: Edit

Maybe if it weren't backwards, it wouldn't be so bad.

Kallisti? You out there?

By Wiz on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 01:52 pm: Edit

I don't know about this, does archiving really help. it seems so confusing to have to go to the archive to read the recent posts. You just have to face the fact that this is a popular site.

By Bob_chong on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 09:03 am: Edit

Yo, Admin: archiving is still backwards.

The most recent posts are archived, then new posts are added at the top of the old posts.

By Admin on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 01:37 pm: Edit

yeah, yer right ... I changed it to 20 & 10. basically, every 20 msgs, it will archive the first 10 of those 20. so at the top of each thread **should** be a link for groups of 10. I think that is how it works. we'll seeee....

By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 11:58 am: Edit

I think 10 and 5 are too small. Things are beginning to branch out and become confusing. Soon you will have to monitor 2 or more branches to keep up with one conversation. Perhaps you could up the number to 20 and 10, or 25 and 15?

K.

By Petermarc on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 10:22 am: Edit

maybe it's my oversized pictures...if you can help me out, i'd like to reduce the size, but can't figure out how to do....lame, yes, i know...

By Melinelly on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 10:06 am: Edit

it seems to be working backwords. only the first five posts are displayed with the new posts being archived. or maybe that's how it's supposed to work?

By Admin on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 09:21 am: Edit

due to increasing popularity of the forum, my bandwidth has skyrocketed. The 76349897 post conversations are killing me ... when 300 people a day read 120k files it adds up

so I've instituted message archiving. after 10 posts each conversation will be trimmed to 5 posts, with a link at the top of the conversation for the previous messages. I haven't used this feature before so consider this a test run.