I'm not premium..but i can see 100 posts per page

  • Thread starter Thread starter tlowr4
  • 67 comments
  • 5,630 views
Status
Not open for further replies.
Also I really don't see the point of this thread, I mean, what personal advantage did you expect ?

It's called being honest. And look, he got Premium for doing so. Karma does exist.

I personally didn't notice this, but I wouldn't have used it anyways. 20 posts per page is more than enough. In fact (now that I notice), I have it set at 10 posts per page. :lol:

I don't understand peoples attitude in this thread. You pay for what you get, isn't that the point of premium?

You don't pay, you don't get 100 ppp, you can't complain about it especially when you've been exploiting a flaw in the programming.

I don't know why non-premium members are complaining about loosing a feature they shouldn't have had in the first place.

These. 👍 Moreover, I think you two are absolutely right, so I will change my avatar to a normal sized version (something which I will probably regret in a few seconds, but meh).
 
It ought not to have been there at all once GTPremium was launched. It just took until now for someone to notice it.
Fair enough, can't & won't argue with that. Still, I don't completly agree. The early bird catches the worm. Those who joined in 2002 had a bigger chance of becoming moderator than those who joined in 2009. Because one obviously prefers veterans instead of new members ( Is there a moderator who joined after 2006 ? ). Without the ( wild guess ) 50.000 members who joined before the introduction of GTPremium there would be no GTPremium.
So that's the aspect of your otherwise waterproof explanation ( no premium member - no use of premium features ),that I see a little differently.

It was a little free feature in the first years of GTP, and I don't see the necessity of taking it away from "veteran" members who had their share that GTP is what it is today. Don't get me wrong, I'm not overestimating my personal influence in that matter, it's close to zero. Yet a little bitter taste remains.

Same goes for parttime premium members. They once payed something, so a little bonus for them is not killing anyone, right ?

Let's draw a line : It's basically only about the advertising. Running GTP costs money and somebody has to pay for it. Either advertising or premium fee. That's the one thing that is not debatable.
The rest is a bunch of features that is meant to make premium even sweater.
A wise business decision and I'm happy for Jordan that many take the chance to become premium members because I like GTP and I want it to last.


I'm not speculating on his motivation, but the GTPremium page does quite clearly say that 20p is for normal members and 30/40/100p is for GTPremium members. If I'd noticed that, I'd have asked Jordan if it was meant to be that way too - but of course I didn't notice it because I am a Premium member and don't have any particular reason to visit the GTPremium page.

Well, you are not, I am. Remember your days on university. First few semesters. Let me tell you a story that probably sounds familiar :
Our chemistry lecturer was quite a freak. While it is rather important for you as a biochemist if I remember correctly, it is not so important in medicine. Most universities within a few hundred miles teach the basics and focus on biochemistry and physiology instead. Well, every university has its disciplines that are harder than elsewhere, chemistry in my case.
Where other chemistry faculties had their 20 - 40 multiple choice questions we had 20 DINA4 pages of questions, calculations, drawings and what not. Failure rates of up to 70% in medicine are rare here because we have 1.0 numerus clausus, at least 50% of our students are learning elite so to say.


Long story short, sometimes students managed to get their hands on these tests by taking another copy with them after the test, and later student generations had something they could use to prepare themselves for the test. That still meant countless hours of preparation parallel to other more important courses like anatomy, cell biology, biochemistry, physiology etc.
But you as least knew the types of questions and maybe 10-20% of the next tests were old questions. Helped a lot of people to pass.

But guess what, there sometimes were those superbrains who worked through these old tests and could only solve 95% of them. And now what did they do to get the lasting 5% ? They took the "stolen" test and walked straight to our lecturer - who of course said - "wtf, where did you get this ? let's change the whole tests, I'm off, thinking about new even harder questions"
Well, we were grateful as you can imagine.

One word : UNNECESSARY

Think first, act later !

And I kind of have the same impression here. I don't know the thread starter tlowr4 personally, but judging from this thread, daan's quote on his member profile "Can you cut out the useless posts please. Asking why a thread died, and posting to say that someone should post, are not valid reasons to resurrect a thread. If a thread dies, it died for a reason, and you should just let it go." and his reactions as to why he posted this thread "AHH.....hmmm...errr....arrr.....i dunno..."
I kind of got a certain impression with what kind of member we are dealing here. No need to go into detail from my side, but a little more thinking before hitting the keyboard is what I'd recommend in future.

And of course Famine, you would have told Jordan, it's your job as part of the moderating team, If I were, I would have too. But I'm not, and tlowr4 isn't, just as my fellow students aka superbrains were not part of chemistry faculty.

I still can't believe that as I'm writing this I'm on page 2, altough there are not even 40 posts... ;)
 
Last edited:
Is there a moderator who joined after 2006 ?
Four.

EDK - May 28 2007
Jack - Mar 27 2008
The Grim Reaper - Apr 05 2008
Vaxen - Feb 27 2008

And ease up on tlowr4. He saw something wasn't right and pointed it out, which is exactly what he should have done.
 
Somebody made a mistake and you were able to enjoy a feature you weren't supposed to have. Praise yourself lucky it lasted this long and get over it. No need to bitch against the messenger.

Personally, I didn't even know the feature was there. :lol: Nor do I care BTW, premo or not.
 
I don't know why non-premium members are complaining about loosing a feature they shouldn't have had in the first place.

Think how pissed you'd be if you bought premium for the sole purpose of 100ppp only to find out you could've got this feature for free.

FYI you don't get this feature for free. You had to be Premo when you selected how many posts you wish to display, then when your Premo runs out it just stays like that.

I had my set to 40 posts per page as I think the loading times are still good and I got to see a reasonable amount of the thread at the same time but I'm not fussed that it's back to 20 now.
 
Guys I have never had a problem with 20 p/p.

Maybe he shouldn't have said, Goes back to the old argument on whether it is right to snitch on a friend if they do something wrong.

Whats the problem with 20p/p. Stop having a go at him for what he did.
 
For the record, I originally devised this constraint because there are very real technical implications with allowing everyone to view 100 posts-per-page on a website of this size. Viewing 100 posts over the default 20 doubles the execution time of the script on the server, while requiring at least 2MB in additional memory. As you all know, when hot GT news pops up, we can easily have thousands of active users in one thread. Allowing anyone who wants to consume significantly more resources when the server needs them the most could have a crippling effect on the site's performance at the worst possible time.

Also, anyone who is upset about this change should direct their anger at me, not tlowr4. I remember when I first implemented and tested this functionality, and to be honest I have no idea when or why it stopped working. However, it's still my responsibility to make sure the site is functioning as it should. My mistake mislead many of you to believe you had access to a feature that you did not, and I am sorry for the disappointment.
 
For the record, I originally devised this constraint because there are very real technical implications with allowing everyone to view 100 posts-per-page on a website of this size. Viewing 100 posts over the default 20 doubles the execution time of the script on the server, while requiring at least 2MB in additional memory. As you all know, when hot GT news pops up, we can easily have thousands of active users in one thread. Allowing anyone who wants to consume significantly more resources when the server needs them the most could have a crippling effect on the site's performance at the worst possible time.

Also, anyone who is upset about this change should direct their anger at me, not tlowr4. I remember when I first implemented and tested this functionality, and to be honest I have no idea when or why it stopped working. However, it's still my responsibility to make sure the site is functioning as it should. My mistake mislead many of you to believe you had access to a feature that you did not, and I am sorry for the disappointment.

I wasn't aware of that technical aspect, I guess that somewhat changes my attitude regarding this matter, although I can't really estimate the effect you described when you take into consideration, that in the situation you mentioned (hot GT news) 50-80% of the viewers are non-members. And of the rest...well, how many still active veteran members ( joined and switched to more than 20 posts/page before GTPremium introduction ) and former parttime premium users are there at a time ?
Also don't forget, that you can still get around the limit by opening several pages in new tabs at a time, which should have a similiar negative effect on the site's performance. I actually did that sometimes as I still had 100 posts per page because I prefer waiting for everything to load instead of interrupting my reading flow and sacrificing clarity of the the thread structure by having to change pages continuously.

No matter what, I'll have to live with the new situation and while I'll certainly miss my 100 posts per page, it is, as many said, not such a big deal.
 
why?? did you do that?! now im stuck at 20 pages... ughhhh

A thread that has brought the direct attention of almost every staff member and the owner, is the one you pick to ignore the AUP on?

So here is a quick reminder.

Good basic grammar is expected from all members, and that includes the use of capital letter to start sentences, for proper nouns and for single 'I's.

Please don't repeat this posting style again.


Thanks

Scaff
 
Yeah I had 100 per page until just now, when I had to change it to 20. Great respect Jordan but I think that's a tiny bit extreme. I mean I can understand the need to promote the site and getting a Premium but not having to "turn the page" every 5 seconds is one of the very many basic things that makes me love the site as much as I do. I'd be happy if you allowed non-Premos to view 50 per page, but no one in their right mind has it set at 20 by choice. I still appreciate what your doing and thank you for all the work you've put into this great forum, but I'm a bit annoyed with this. However if it really is necessary to put the posts per page count this far down (and it really is a long way) to keep the server memory or whatever it is to reasonable levels, I'll learn to live with it. 👍 Just my 2 cents.
 
OK. Good. Just one thing.

Apologies on my behalf to any inconveniance, frustration, or hardship i may have caused during the time of fixing the 100ppp glitch.
Thankyou for your understanding and aid in this matter

That's just how the software works. For example, it only checks avatar sizes when someone uploads a new one - it doesn't check each user's avatar size against their new user group when they are demoted (and yes, it's the same with the signatures for older users). Other privileges which are determined dynamically with each page load can more easily be "revoked".
Very true. Most software these days, don't have the technology intergaded in them to check when someone is 'demoted' (or de-premiumed :lol:.)
In which case if the software misses something it would be checking everyso often on the pic size. And because of the type of software it would have to be permanently checking(as in checking non-stop:scared:).

EDIT: Sorry about the double post. I thought that someone else had already posted before me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For the record, I originally devised this constraint because there are very real technical implications with allowing everyone to view 100 posts-per-page on a website of this size. Viewing 100 posts over the default 20 doubles the execution time of the script on the server, while requiring at least 2MB in additional memory. As you all know, when hot GT news pops up, we can easily have thousands of active users in one thread. Allowing anyone who wants to consume significantly more resources when the server needs them the most could have a crippling effect on the site's performance at the worst possible time.

Also, anyone who is upset about this change should direct their anger at me, not tlowr4. I remember when I first implemented and tested this functionality, and to be honest I have no idea when or why it stopped working. However, it's still my responsibility to make sure the site is functioning as it should. My mistake mislead many of you to believe you had access to a feature that you did not, and I am sorry for the disappointment.

Well, I don't operate the site, and I have little understanding of website operation in general, but wouldn't the fact that pages are loaded significantly less often at 100 posts per page help to cancel out the extra resources needed to load a given page? I mean, the server may have to work with twice as much data on 100-post pages, but wouldn't they be loaded five times less often? I guess that the effect doesn't happen fully in practice, as people often refresh a page repeatedly when it's highly active and tend overwhelmingly to visit the first page, but if you're just reading a thread, then 100 posts is clearly more efficient not only for the reader but also for the server. Max_DC also has a point in that most thread viewers in high-traffic times are guests, and relatively few members use 100 posts per page, anyway. I would think that an argument with more merit would be that advertisement revenue could theoretically suffer, since you spend more time reading in the middle of the page and less time scrolling down from the top; of course, with twenty posts per page, you would simply see more pages and hence more advertisements, as well.

If this option really did cause major technical problems, then I support the decision to remove it, even if I don't like it. But human nature tends to take for granted what you already have, and even if you never "deserved" a privilege in the first place, you still end up very annoyed when it is taken away. I feel that the displeasure and frustration that you have caused other members, despite its irrationality and your lack of culpability for it, means that the better decision was probably to accept the oversight and its consequences for the site's operation.
 
I'd be happy if you allowed non-Premos to view 50 per page, but no one in their right mind has it set at 20 by choice.

I do, always have had it set to 20, don't intend changing at all.

Just because its not your personal preference doesn't mean you should question the sanity of those for whom it is.

:)



@tlowr4
- Please don't double post again - I have merged your post this time, but use the edit button in future.


Scaff
 
Same here. Until a few minutes ago, I had it set to 10 posts per page, even when I knew I could set it up to 20. Since I don't usually go to threads with many images, this will be better for me.
 
And I kind of have the same impression here. I don't know the thread starter tlowr4 personally, but judging from this thread, daan's quote on his member profile "Can you cut out the useless posts please. Asking why a thread died, and posting to say that someone should post, are not valid reasons to resurrect a thread. If a thread dies, it died for a reason, and you should just let it go." and his reactions as to why he posted this thread "AHH.....hmmm...errr....arrr.....i dunno..."
I kind of got a certain impression with what kind of member we are dealing here. No need to go into detail from my side, but a little more thinking before hitting the keyboard is what I'd recommend in future.

I do realise what your saying and i appreciate your interest, but what dann posted on my profile was in regards to a few posts in which i said
What happend to my thread :(:(
The ahh...hmm...errr...arrr...i dunno :sly: post was in regards to the post above it.... Why tell us then?

It was a small joke. That's all :)
 
Well, I don't operate the site, and I have little understanding of website operation in general, but wouldn't the fact that pages are loaded significantly less often at 100 posts per page help to cancel out the extra resources needed to load a given page?
It doesn't matter - users who view 100 posts per page are still consuming twice as many resources to read what is most likely less than 20 new posts, anyways. I realize that you don't think this argument has much "merit", but if I were not interested in providing as much additional functionality to Premium users as possible, I can tell you that no-one here would be viewing more than 20 posts at a time.
 
I do, always have had it set to 20, don't intend changing at all.

Ditto. I suspect the extra loading times for the big picture threads would drive me loopy with any more than 20p/p.

Seems like much ado about nothing anyway. People are complaining about losing something they were getting completely for free. 100p/p was a privelege, not a right.
 
I also have it set to 20ppp in my right mind. If it were any bigger I would never be able to view threads with pictures, they would just keep loading and loading and loading.
 
I've been browsing this site at 100 posts per page since 2002 now.

It's going to be pretty weird when my subscription runs out and I'm stuck browsing this site at 20. I'm definitely one of those people who likes to have everything on one page, I hate switching pages for some reason. It's also probably about the only thing that would bother me about browsing this site non-premium.

100p/p was a privelege, not a right.

:reallyseriousface:

Are you principal Skinner?
 
Last edited:
In this world, people must simply make do to stop themselves going crazy.

20pp is fine - I have always had it like that, and probably because I didn't know, didn't care for anything more. If I had 100 ppp on the first 100 posts of the Amazing and cool picture thread, the time it would take would be rediculous.

I've sen many people slammed in the imports thread for posting too many pictures in one post - well what on earth do you think is going to happen if there are 100 ppp?

I think this has all the symptoms of what I like to call Facebook Shock. When FB gets a facelift, EVERYONE complains - but after just less than a week, everyone gets their priorities in order and goes back to their life.

Stick it out, and you'll eventually understand why 20ppp is actually quite good.

👍
 
Look, the new point of this thread is to:
a)complain if you liked 100ppp, or
b) flame guys who did Option a).

If you're not Premium, you get 20ppp, which I use..

I'd suggest this thread be closed 👎
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Posts

Back