Big Threads: Have mercy on the speed-chalanged ... Please !!!

[rworange]

I don't read threads over 100 posts for the most part because they take too long to load and tye up my pc. Slow connection.

However, there are one or two I am interested in and follow.

So this morning I open up a thread with about 150 posts and here was the response ... a smile

)

That was it. I wasn't smiling.

When it gets that long please consider not responding unless you are adding info. No LOL, no smily faces, no I agrees, etc

Of course, this post is like spitting in the Grand Canyon. It probably won't have any impact ,... but one can try.

TIA )

[the_MU]

If there's a board you follow, you can subscribe to it via RSS. The item previews will show you the content of the newest messages without having to load the whole thread.

[small h]

I am unamused by the no-contribution contributions myself. But my computer opens a 150-post thread in <2 seconds. You may be due for an upgrade, or just some routine maintenance. Because you complain about this A LOT.

[rworange]

Well, it is a moot point since I'm leaving the country for about a year in a few days

. I'd worry about it on my side except there are only three sites on the internet that are this glacial. One of the is the food network and there isn't anything there that I can;t get elsewhere Forget the other. Packages like Ruby on Rails can be a problem for some. Sure it gets a sit up fast, but I've found thru my career, there's a lot of downsides and liimitations to software like that.

[c oliver]

I don't have the fastest connection on the block and rarely look at any video for that reason. But, yes, even REALLY huge threads - 400 or 500 - open really rather quickly. I do get tired of those threads simply because of having to scroll through to get the new posts and also, more importantly, when they get that big there' so much redundancy. But connection speed isn't the problem.

[c oliver]

I just opened one that has almost 450 replies and it took about 10 seconds. I have the time to spare.

[StheJ]

You also might consider getting a faster connection... I have no problem glancing over stuff that is non pertinent and I think that while :) may not technically add information to the conversation, it still may be pertinent to know that, yes, someone else agrees with a particular statement or review of a restaurant. The more information the better.

[rworange]

LIke Chowhound, but when everything else works fine, I see no reason to spend more money to accomodate a single site. Also, I don't know the situation these days but in the past connection speed seemed irrelevant.

There's agreeing and there's agreeing. I usually don't add non-information like a thumbs up, be the thread short or long .... unless ... it is someone new with potential and responding might seem friendlier and encouraging them to post more.

For regulars,I rarely reply unless I have info to supplement.

[Servorg]

It's one thing if you catch the thread near the beginning and follow it (organically if you will) as it morphs into a monster thread along the way. If the thread is already a monster then I pick out certain posters to read, and depending on what they are saying I'll either head upstream to see the posts they are responding to, or downstream to see what others said to them. At times, over time, this has actually ended with my having consumed and digested the whole damn thing (in little bite sized manageable pieces).