Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A friendly remind about quoting and replying to posts
#1
It's been awhile since we've had this discussion. So, here goes...

In an effort to save band width and help members with limited data or out in the boonies with slow loading internet (a webpage that reloads and reloads uses more data) we've always had policies with regard to quoting and using the reply button.

When replying to the original post there is no need to quote.

When replying to the post directly above your new post there is no need to quote. It's all about the flow of conversation

If you do quote or use the reply button, trim your quote to include only the portion of the post to which you are replying.

When using the quote or reply button trim any pictures out of the quote

You don't HAVE to use the quote or reply button.

You can use upward arrows, one for each post in between yours and the post to which you are responding. (^^^)

You can answer by referring to someone by name

I know we discussed other ways, but I don't remember them so feel free to clue me in

Thanks for your consideration
I'd like to give myself a few negative ratings, because I am such a big meanie. The forum won't allow it. Feel free!

Cyndi (made it across the cattle guard)
http://rvlyeverafter.blogspot.com/

"I reject your reality and substitute my own."
~ Adam Savage
Add Thank You Reply
The following 12 users say Thank You to cyndi for this post:
GEAUX- PRIUS Cowboy (06-27-2017), Kathleen (04-23-2017), #1BonBonQueen (11-30-2016), pamerica (09-04-2016), frater secessus (08-20-2016), Vonbrown (07-14-2016), Every Road Leads Home (07-14-2016), rvpopeye (07-14-2016), Theadyn (07-14-2016), Txjaybird (07-14-2016), GotSmart (07-14-2016), Bitty (07-14-2016)
#2
I wish I did not have to manually delete quoted material which just shows up in the reply, not in the quick reply box.
I sometimes forget.
Add Thank You Reply
The following 1 user says Thank You to SternWake for this post:
#1BonBonQueen (11-30-2016)
#3
Another place a quote won't show up is by using one of the "New Reply" buttons either at the top right or bottom right of the thread. Smile
Add Thank You Reply
The following 3 users say Thank You to VanDwellerMod for this post:
#1BonBonQueen (11-30-2016), pamerica (09-04-2016), cyndi (07-14-2016)
#4
Each post has a number associated with it in the upper right hand corner. You could say something like I agree with what Cyndi said in post #1
Add Thank You Reply
The following 4 users say Thank You to DannyB1954 for this post:
Kathleen (04-23-2017), #1BonBonQueen (11-30-2016), KWAL (11-01-2016), cyndi (07-14-2016)
#5
Quoting posts is a tiny fraction of the wasted bandwidth on a forum site, and quoting images does not use additional bandwidth at all, unless the reply is on a different page vs. the original post and the image is not cached by the browser (quoting images is still an annoying habit in most cases, if nothing else).  There is a lot of low hanging fruit that would be better addressed by either the user or the web dev, depending on who want's to optimize their bandwidth use.

For instance, If I had quoted cyndi's original post, it would use an additional ~1100 bytes out of a total web page size of 543,650 bytes, or an increase of 0.002% bandwidth used.

For a web dev:
  1. Enable caching of re-usable images, javascript, and css files by assigning an expiry-time to these web elements and/or the header.  Most browsers will not cache content that does not have an expiry time set.
  2. Optimize image sizes of things like header and background images.  Images account for about 30% of this page size.
  3. "Minify" HTML (14% reductions), CSS (12% reduction), and Javascript (24% reduction) elements.  Google PageSpeed analysis reports these figures for you.  You are already using gzip deflate on the server, which is good practice if bandwidth is a concern.
  4. Disable less-necessary code elements, like reply-on-page, users viewing stats, etc. 
  5. Selectively enable elements to display based on logged in vs. non-logged in users - most forum scripts already do this to some extent.  The savings will be dependent on what ratio of traffic is guest vs. logged in users.
  6. Use relative links rather than absolute links when possible.  This would yield impressive savings with the large nested navigation header you have here.
For a user looking to conserve bandwidth:
  1. Enable your browser cache!  Increase its maximum size as well.
  2. Disable images loading by default, setting differs from browser to browser, and may require an addon for some finer grained controls.
  3. Use an ad-blocker selectively, enable when on limited bandwidth connections.
  4. Use RSS feeds to keep up to date with the forum instead of loading the webpage directly all the time.  You can use live bookmarks or a dedicated feed reader for this purpose.
  5. Check for new content using "View New Posts" and "View Today's Posts" instead of clicking through to each sub-forum that interests you.
  6. Optimize your thread view settings:  The default settings load a small amount of topics/posts per page.  This is optimal is you visit very regularly.  If you visit infrequently, maximize this setting so that you perform less total page loads for each topic you read and more posts/topics per page are displayed.
  7. Disable JavaScript using a tool like NoScript if you feel comfortable browsing without some of the dynamic elements enabled.  This enhances both security and bandwidth use. 
  8. You can also disable CSS is you want to view only the bare-bones content of a website, although some sites are totally unreadable depending on how independent the design is from the style sheets.
Add Thank You Reply
The following 9 users say Thank You to AngryVanMan for this post:
slynne (04-23-2017), #1BonBonQueen (11-30-2016), KWAL (11-01-2016), Richard (10-16-2016), kayell (10-16-2016), Vacilador (07-16-2016), VanGrrl57 (07-15-2016), cyndi (07-14-2016), TMG51 (07-14-2016)
#6
Disabling the 15 minute edit time restriction would also save bandwidth when a correction or addition needs to be made outside that window!  In the quote stat I mentioned above, 1100/543650 is 0.2%. not 0.002% - forgot to multiply by 100 for the ratio to be expressed as a percentage!

Had that 15 minute timer not been blocking me after I noticed the error, I would have saved 2 bytes in my original post, while instead I spent ~1000 bytes explaining and correcting the mistake 20 some odd minutes later with this post!  Dang nabbit!  Ack!  Each word is a penalty.... can't... stop... typing... must.. hit... reply.... button!   Tongue
Add Thank You Reply
The following 4 users say Thank You to AngryVanMan for this post:
dr_nelson (04-24-2017), Queen (04-23-2017), DrJean (11-30-2016), #1BonBonQueen (11-30-2016)
#7
(07-14-2016, 01:22 PM)DannyB1954 Wrote: Each post has a number associated with it in the upper right hand corner. You could say something like I agree with what Cyndi said in post #1

This is usually a good tactic.  However, be aware that post numbers are subject to change.   For example, a thread may be split into 2 separate threads, or a duplicate post may get deleted, or 2 posts might get merged, or 2 threads might get merged, etc.   All of these examples would alter the post numbers.
Add Thank You Reply
The following 3 users say Thank You to VanDwellerMod for this post:
#1BonBonQueen (11-30-2016), KWAL (11-01-2016), cyndi (07-14-2016)
#8
(07-14-2016, 02:26 PM)AngryVanMan Wrote: Disabling the 15 minute edit time restriction would also save bandwidth...

I thought I'd let you and other newer members know our history with the 15-minute time limit for editing posts. 

For the first several years this forum was on a different software platform that did not have a time limit to edit a post.  What sometimes happened was poster #1 would make a comment that poster #2 disagreed with.  After poster #2 presented their reaction in a response, poster #1 edited their original post making poster #2 appear to have over-reacted to or misunderstood poster #1.  Unfortunately, this scenario happened too often.  So, when the forum owners began looking for a replacement software, they purposely selected one that had a time-limit function.

For another couple of years the time limit to edit a post was set to 5 minutes.  Then, at the request of several members and a consensus among the moderators, the time limit was extended to 15 minutes.  That happened about a year ago.  See http://www.cheaprvliving.com/forums/Thre...#pid143555

I don't want to hijack this thread, but wanted to share the reasoning behind our 15-minute window and, thus, the subsequent use of a little extra bandwidth when a poster hasn't caught their error(s) within the 15-minute edit limit.
Add Thank You Reply
The following 4 users say Thank You to VanDwellerMod for this post:
#1BonBonQueen (11-30-2016), lisamac (07-14-2016), cyndi (07-14-2016), Every Road Leads Home (07-14-2016)
#9
(07-14-2016, 02:01 PM)AngryVanMan Wrote: Quoting posts is a tiny fraction of the wasted bandwidth on a forum site, and quoting images does not use additional bandwidth at all...[snip]

Thank you for knowing how computers work. The bandwidth old wives' tales that go around here are usually mistaken for the voice of reason.
[Image: W2lacLw.jpg]
Add Thank You Reply
#10
The problem comes in when a user on their mobile device wants to read a reply which is one sentence long, and has to download a large number of paragraphs from the previous poster.  

Reason seems to not have much to do with many of the posts, just emotion.  Rolleyes
Trouble rather a tiger in his lair than a sage at his books. To you kingdoms and armies are mighty and enduring, to him they are toys of the moment, to be overturned with the flick of a finger. G Dickson.
Add Thank You Reply
The following 1 user says Thank You to GotSmart for this post:
cyndi (07-14-2016)


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.