mydrugbuddy
Bluelighter
Isnt it the volume of traffic thats causing the problem rather than the amount of threads ? I mean everything is usually OK until around 6pm, when hundreds of people who are eight hours behing us start logging on and psoting.
-
🇬🇧 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
European & African
Drug Discussion
Welcome Guest!
Posting Rules Bluelight Rules -
EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari
The EADD Metathread - Let's talk about how we can improve EADD
- Thread starter knock
- Start date
knock
Bluelighter
Yes, exactly as Roganjosh says. The load on the server is something like:
number of users X per user load
and per user load is a function of how long it takes to run database queries. Fewer threads and fewer posts = quicker queries.
However techniques like caching recent query results can make huge differences to improving performance without having to reduce the quantity of data, I have no idea if that's been looked at though.
number of users X per user load
and per user load is a function of how long it takes to run database queries. Fewer threads and fewer posts = quicker queries.
However techniques like caching recent query results can make huge differences to improving performance without having to reduce the quantity of data, I have no idea if that's been looked at though.
mydrugbuddy
Bluelighter
i find the bluelight search engine completely useless, maybe that has improved since i last tried to use it, but i usually search for threads via yahoo; for example by typing in 'bupe recovery bluelight.ru' or something like that. The search thread feature within threads works well though. Also the sticky you made for the 'where is the xxx thread' is usefull, I've used that a few times to find threads ive been looking for.
knock
Bluelighter
Just to be clear, every page you see on BL is the result of a database query. Not just searches.
The "advanced" search engine is actually pretty good but the interface is a bit fiddly.
The "advanced" search engine is actually pretty good but the interface is a bit fiddly.
Yeah this is the point I was trying to get across, in my non-programmer fumbling way. I kinda understand these things but struggle to to articulate it!
wcote
Greenlighter
[wcote posted, in response to this discussion taking place in the "Dangerous strength heroin" thread (said discussion has now been moved)]
This is a thread about high strength heroin across England (UK and Ireland really)
Having the debate above is great! But please can it be moved? I made a simple request but to be ignored and then have my post deleted is rude.
This is a thread about high strength heroin across England (UK and Ireland really)
Having the debate above is great! But please can it be moved? I made a simple request but to be ignored and then have my post deleted is rude.
Last edited by a moderator:
knock
Bluelighter
I'm sure snolly can speak for herself but I'm awake so I'll speak for "moderators" as a species.
Your request wasn't ignored, Snolly read it and tried to deal with it but didn't feel it was her place to start a thread about a drug she doesn't use. My balls are marginally steelier, so I've created such a thread, linked in my edit of your post.
You have the power to create threads, I know it can be intimidating but it's really no big deal
If you'd created the thread then perhaps DieselEstate would have contributed to it rather than putting off-topic posts in the sticky heroin thread.So I would encourage you to act on your feelings rather than merely expressing your desires in the form of complaints about moderator (in)action
As a forum member, it's your forum as much as it is the mods' forum. We have certain powers that I would rather you had too so it's not perfect but there's fuck all I can do about that in the short term, and possibly not the long term either. Bluelight as an establishment is not for changing, which is what one might expect from establishments.I am certain Snolly's intent was not to be "rude" but rather the opposite :D
wcote
Greenlighter
Thanks.
Edited - as I would rather not get caught up on little issues.
So thank you for helping
Edited - as I would rather not get caught up on little issues.
So thank you for helping
knock
Bluelighter
I know you don't have that power. I alluded to this fact. I would prefer it if you, or rather the members, democratically, did have this power. However it's not possible AFAIK under the current technical implementation of BL, and the people who control BL show no interest in working towards that. I will most likely continue to campaign for it this year
Why do you think it was rude? I can't find the post in question, but I'm probably looking in the wrong place (I can see deleted posts so it's reasonable that I should see your one). Maybe snolly was just out of her tree? I don't think that makes her actions "rude". Possibly "impaired"?
Why do you think it was rude? I can't find the post in question, but I'm probably looking in the wrong place (I can see deleted posts so it's reasonable that I should see your one). Maybe snolly was just out of her tree? I don't think that makes her actions "rude". Possibly "impaired"?
wcote
Greenlighter
Its fine
No worries.
No worries.
Edit: Too much rambling. No offence was intended and I did indeed act initially on wcote's request but for some reason when I moved the posts back after some discussion, wcote's got lost. It wasn't deleted maliciously and as far as I can tell hasn't actually been deleted or unapproved at all. Needless to say I made a crap decision and probably shouldn't have deleted the posts explaining my actions, but to me they were asking for a further derail given that the other person involved had deleted the posts that mine related to. So sorry about that. Rude is the last thing I intend to be, especially to someone I have no issue with, but I suppose it came across like that; please feel free to PM me about anything like that if it happens again and I'll sort it out, between me being out of sorts and the internet being weird I'm not as on the ball as I'd like.
And yes, impaired pretty much explains it. I could have whittled that post down to 'no offence intended, benzos
'
It's better than the time I edited somene's post and made them look like a massive gay rather than quoting it.
And yes, impaired pretty much explains it. I could have whittled that post down to 'no offence intended, benzos
'It's better than the time I edited somene's post and made them look like a massive gay rather than quoting it.
Last edited:
knock
Bluelighter
We ask all members to keep embedded videos to the dedicated threads. The reason for this is that embedded videos consume a large amount of bandwidth, and cause pages to take a lot longer to load. It's not an issue for people with fast broadband connections, but it is an issue for those who have slower connections or who are using mobile phones. It is, in fact, a major inconvenience for those people. Even on a broadband connection, older systems can become bogged down with all embedded videos.
If embeds are confined to specific threads, then those people who do not wish to be subjected to them can choose to avoid those threads. Those who enjoy posting and watching/listening to embedded videos can carry on. I don't see anyone losing out in this set-up. All it requires is a modicum of self-discipline.
I understand where you're coming from, one embed on a page is not going to cause much of a problem, but "random embedding is okay" is a difficult rule to follow, or enforce. If enough people post "random" embeds on one page, this would amount to a problem. Which posts get edited? Who gets a bollocking? Who gets infractions?
I don't want to have to make judgments about who's gone daft with embeds and who hasn't. Careful judgement takes time and the moderators have limited time. It is much easier to say "no embeds are allowed, except in those threads where it is expressly permitted.
Does anyone not understand why it's a problem? Does anyone have an argument with our desire to keep such embeds confined to specific threads?
Full disclosure: I know I myself have occasionally posted embedded video in threads where it is not supposed to happen, I know sometimes we all have a lapse of judgement. But it seems that certain members just don't give a fuck whatsoever :D I am asking you to please start giving a fuck.
If embeds are confined to specific threads, then those people who do not wish to be subjected to them can choose to avoid those threads. Those who enjoy posting and watching/listening to embedded videos can carry on. I don't see anyone losing out in this set-up. All it requires is a modicum of self-discipline.
I understand where you're coming from, one embed on a page is not going to cause much of a problem, but "random embedding is okay" is a difficult rule to follow, or enforce. If enough people post "random" embeds on one page, this would amount to a problem. Which posts get edited? Who gets a bollocking? Who gets infractions?
I don't want to have to make judgments about who's gone daft with embeds and who hasn't. Careful judgement takes time and the moderators have limited time. It is much easier to say "no embeds are allowed, except in those threads where it is expressly permitted.
Does anyone not understand why it's a problem? Does anyone have an argument with our desire to keep such embeds confined to specific threads?
Full disclosure: I know I myself have occasionally posted embedded video in threads where it is not supposed to happen, I know sometimes we all have a lapse of judgement. But it seems that certain members just don't give a fuck whatsoever :D I am asking you to please start giving a fuck.
i understand where you're coming from, one embed on a page is not going to cause much of a problem, but "random embedding is okay" is a difficult rule to follow, or enforce. If enough people post "random" embeds on one page, this would amount to a problem. Which posts get edited? Who gets a bollocking? Who gets infractions?
OH, MAKE ME OUT TO BE THE BAD GUY WHY DONCHA!
(i jest, I know whatchore doing) ;P
I still do think that random daily shit should be able to be embedded tbh, and the answer to that is maybe to even make a rule of just NO MUSIC embeds anywhere ('cept for the 'music embed thread' ... ? ) Just a suggestion ... cos random viral vids that gets posted in Gibbs daily say, really don't accumulate to much, and they don't affect browsing at all. Unless someone starts to take the piss and just 'test' that theory & to push it's boundaries just for the sake of it, if you know what I mean (which does tend to happen when 'rules and policies' get enforced), and that could be dealt with on an individual poster level, 'cos there wont be many of those.
I also understand the dilema of managing that situation too tho, and it normally leads down this path that normally leads to hard and fast rules, which I try to avoid because well, we're humans and should all be able to cobble together in the end in agreement, rather than have a knit-tight, rule heavy manifesto to follow.
But eh, that utopia is probably just in my mind. It's good to dream tho, no?.
Shambles
Bluelight Crew
They do say that points made in trifold variation are useful when debating but usually doesn't involve the entire piece
I tend to agree with at least two of the above comments. I don't see the problem with the odd embed - quite like 'em done "right" actually - but I agree that when people take the piss it is deeply irritating cos it does indeed take bastard ages for pages to load. I wasn't aware we had threads where embedding was disapproved of other than the tunes thread cos it only ended up with virtually every post including at least one embed. I've not really come across such problems elsewhere although the documentaries thread has gotten a tad cluttered of late admittedly (myself being one of the prime offenders
). It's not that bad but I'm not using a mobile so I guess it doesn't really matter how not bad it is for folk who it's not bad for.
Is it really such a problem forumwide? Would it not be easier to specify which problem threads cannot be embedded in - or perhaps just drop a polite PM to the particular posters who embed somewhat excessively and/or where there's really no need or value in it whatsoever - cos it's only a couple that seem to be causing problems in both instances as far as I've seen.
I tend to agree with at least two of the above comments. I don't see the problem with the odd embed - quite like 'em done "right" actually - but I agree that when people take the piss it is deeply irritating cos it does indeed take bastard ages for pages to load. I wasn't aware we had threads where embedding was disapproved of other than the tunes thread cos it only ended up with virtually every post including at least one embed. I've not really come across such problems elsewhere although the documentaries thread has gotten a tad cluttered of late admittedly (myself being one of the prime offenders
). It's not that bad but I'm not using a mobile so I guess it doesn't really matter how not bad it is for folk who it's not bad for.Is it really such a problem forumwide? Would it not be easier to specify which problem threads cannot be embedded in - or perhaps just drop a polite PM to the particular posters who embed somewhat excessively and/or where there's really no need or value in it whatsoever - cos it's only a couple that seem to be causing problems in both instances as far as I've seen.
brimz
Bluelighter
oI ADEVA[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[]A
LMKN '/;,
i made a really nice no agrrerssion a bit wittyn fukin poost qouting rass n shm coolmaqtookm 30mis itb fukinwent to bloodt s ia m going to have a X rated 6 hrs
LMKN '/;,
i made a really nice no agrrerssion a bit wittyn fukin poost qouting rass n shm coolmaqtookm 30mis itb fukinwent to bloodt s ia m going to have a X rated 6 hrs
brimz
Bluelighter
i am not fuked up myshit putA IS THOUGH IT AMKE ME LOOK A FUKNUT
brimz
Bluelighter
adeva GOT IT EH ?
knock
Bluelighter
The reason I suggest embeds should be kept to their own threads is so people can then choose not to view them simply by not going to those threads.
I can see how that might seem a bit extreme. But it's a really easy rule to understand and follow.
I think this is key. It's not bad for me on my laptop but it is bad for me on my tablet and phone. I know, I'm lucky to have so many choices but some people don't have a choice and they're only on a phone. I'm sure some people would see it as excessive to have a PC or laptop and make do with a tablet. They're not just for shoreditch twats any more. A cheap tablet is a relatively inexpensive and easy way to get online.
Yes we can take steps to block flash etc but even with FlashBlock I find page loads very slow. I think it actually still loads the flash in the background. There are other steps we can take but they require a level of technical expertise that it's not fair to expect of people using the site.
This is my equivalent of a "polite PM to particular posters". I am not singling anyone out. I am making it public so everyone is aware (or has the chance to be aware).
Nicklazz, what is Brimz saying? :D
I can see how that might seem a bit extreme. But it's a really easy rule to understand and follow.
I think this is key. It's not bad for me on my laptop but it is bad for me on my tablet and phone. I know, I'm lucky to have so many choices
but some people don't have a choice and they're only on a phone. I'm sure some people would see it as excessive to have a PC or laptop and make do with a tablet. They're not just for shoreditch twats any more. A cheap tablet is a relatively inexpensive and easy way to get online. Yes we can take steps to block flash etc but even with FlashBlock I find page loads very slow. I think it actually still loads the flash in the background. There are other steps we can take but they require a level of technical expertise that it's not fair to expect of people using the site.
This is my equivalent of a "polite PM to particular posters". I am not singling anyone out. I am making it public so everyone is aware (or has the chance to be aware).
Nicklazz, what is Brimz saying? :D