Number of posts per page

[conkeso]

I'm not sure if i can change it, but if not, it will be much better to have 20-25 post per page instead of ¿100?

[Andrew]

You can't individually change it, but I can change it in the forum admin panel. I'm open to suggestions, so I'll make this a sticky, so I can see what everyone thinks.

[Andrew]

By the way, did you mean number of threads (topics) displayed per page, or the number of message within a thread displayed per page?

[conkeso]

Messages within a thread

[Power And Proud]

I agree, the number of posts on a page needs to be cut down. Take RealGM.com for example, only 10-15 posts per page, depending on the sizes of each post.

100 posts on a single page is just too much. cut it down to 20-25 please Andrew.

Thanks

[alexboom]

20-25 is enough for sure

I'm still with a 56k, it's sometimes hard to load some thread although the connection is good here

[Rens]

20-25 is too low an ammount I think. 50 would be best, it's half the current number and you won't lose track of the discussion either.

[Nick]

I think 100 is fine...

Otherwise threads like DK's will have about 20 pages

well, if you're gooing to lower it at all...my suggestion is about 50.

[hetoft]

I'll say the same as Nick; 100 is fine, but if the numer should be lowered, i'll say 50-75.

[Andy_Balls]

20-25 is fine i think beause you dont read a post more than once so you just skip all the pages you have read and for 56kers it loads a lot better i have to wait around 5 mins to see if there are new kicks lol only to find a 1 line post saying keep up the good work lol

[conkeso]

I wasn't talking about loading times precisely, but about the lenght of the page down, is too difficcult to find a message between a hundred.

[MC Snowy]

I think 100 is fine...

Otherwise threads like DK's will have about 20 pages

well, if you're gooing to lower it at all...my suggestion is about 50.

i also agree with Nick

[thunderdome]

100 is too much for my 56k

i think 50 is the better solution!

[TheBob]

50 sounds good to me too.

[scubilete]

20-25 is fine i think beause you dont read a post more than once so you just skip all the pages you have read and for 56kers

You do read a post more than once if someone else quoted it, you will need to check the conversation he's talking about, at least I just visit the NBA talk section, and there you would need to do that. I don't complain about the time it takes to load and I'm a Dial up 56K user, so if you are going to make the change Andrew, 50 should be OK, that way the NBA talk section threads won't get the break that fast.

[CT]

25-30 would be perfect for me.

[Nick]

Good point scubilete,
If you're looking at a thread that's 125 pages or so and you view it for the first time at the 70th page or so...then you wont now what the hell is going on unless you view about 5 pages before it....boooo...instead of just scrolling up.

Plus,

My Basketball tips thread...it's going to be much harder for me to keep track of stats if i have to view more pages...it's much eaier just to scroll up...

I think 100 is best, and this is coming from a 56k user. it doesn't matter if you have to wait longer to view big threads...if you have them at 25 ppp...then what does that solve? nothing. you gottta see them anyway? just it sections...which will suck...

[Jay-Peso]

100 takes for ever to scroll all the way down to see all of em. Then make your post. My Opinion=20-25! Thank you!

[Andrew]

I've already reduced the number of posts per page - it now stands at 50. The forum still displays 100 topics per page, though.

[Jay-Peso]

Ok, thank you!