Re-Opened Can we cut the page length in half?

[extropic]

On a PC, Intel, Win 10, Chrome.

I live in a rural, wooded area. There is no cable here. The trees make satellite access nonviable. I'm at the extreem end of the local DSL network.
A Verizon mobile hotspot provides my current internet access. Having 5 Mbps download speed is a rare good moment for me.

My complaint is that it takes Toooooo long to load some threads that I follow. It's common for the download to time-out and the little "image" icons will appear. At that point it seems faster to open the image in a new tab. I blame the proliferation of giant, unedited photos for the high data consumption needed to load a page of many threads.

Since I have zero expectation of all members posting reasonable sized photos, I wonder if shortening the length of a displayed "page" is a viable way to improve access speed. In other words, if the page was substantially shorter, there would be substantially fewer photos to load to view that page. It's frustrating to wait for last weeks photos to load in order to see todays photos at the bottom of the same page. I can't think of a downside to a much shorter page, but then I'm not an IT expert.

What say you?

 

[wa5cab]

sycle1,

You must have some sort of bottleneck between wherever you are and wherever our server is physically located. It matters not a whit to me how many photos are in a thread. They just appear in the blink of an eye so to speak. Aside from the server freeze-up problem which we were having but which hasn't appeared recently, the server could be sitting next door or in the next room.

 

[vtcnc]

You must have some sort of bottleneck between wherever you are and wherever our server is physically located.

At the end of the day, I believe Robert is correct and this is the issue. I'm willing to experiment with settings to an extent - as I've already done here in this thread. I am genuinely curious and hopeful that it will help some members that are rural or have internet connections that just aren't designed for high traffic content - like DSL. I say that - and recognize that our forum does experience delays from time to time. Outside of these server problems, I have never experienced loading time problems - but I have cable internet and that makes DSL or satellite internet look like the telegraph.

We have this problem in Vermont in more rural areas of the state. The only options for some people are cellular hotspots or satellite. My father has satellite and has learned to work with it. I'm not sure I could after being spoiled with cable internet for so many years.

 

[vtcnc]

@extropic - any feedback you can share?

 

[extropic]

The 10 replies per page is a big improvement. Fewer photos to load = faster. No timing out or IMG . . . .jpg icons showing up, so far.

I can live with this. I'm not spoiled by 50Mbps so 5Mbps gets me by, usually. Thanks for the help.

Keep an eye open for that magic add-on that will modify any photo downloaded to crop the 90% background BS, focus on the subject and resize to reasonable. LOL

 

[wa5cab]

Now that I understand what E meant by page length, if that is an editable variable, decreasing the magnitude shouldn't hurt anyone and should help those stuck with poor Internet speed. Be sire to adjust the variable magnitude in PM's as well But I don't think that I would change it in Downloads. OKA Resources.

 

[Flyinfool]

A little late but another $0.02 worth.
My internet is half fast.
How much would it help to only allow thumbnails so if some one wants to see the full pic they can click on it and load it. I do not need to see every pic full size every time I visit a thread. Thumbnails load almost instantly but the full size I get to watch them fill in.
I almost always use the thumbnail option for photos in my posts.

PS I do not care for the 10 post per page, I always select the biggest option. Options are good. But that is the other thread.