New Posts time

[Baloki]

Also it makes people think mods are online when in fact they went offline 30 mins ago :P

[Del Murder]

30 sounds good.

Now let's see about fixing those load times....

[eestlinc]

i figure the more threads that get reset, the less time I'll waste reading threads.

[Yamaneko]

And the less threads I'll mod.

I kid, people. Really.

[Citizen Bleys]

set it to 30 SECONDS, please.

[Peegee]

If we set it for 3 days, we can easily break our record huzzah asian pride!

[Cid]

I think there was probably good reason not to have it set for so long. 30 minutes seems like too long to me.

*agrees*

[Loony BoB]

Only typical that the two most powerful members of EoFF go against. >=o

If there was any good reason, it wouldn't have been adjustable in the Admin CP. It's just a matter of preference, and especially with the odd slow loading time lately, it's even more helpful because I kept getting logged out and couldn't keep track of what threads I needed to read.

We could of course compromise at 23 minutes. 23 is my favourite number.

[crono_logical]

I don't really think 30 minutes is a huge problem either, and can be convenient at times The inflating of members online just happens to be a nice side effect of it

[Cid]

But we're showing 300 members online.. that's ridiculous. Of course anyone with half a brain would know that was false. It looks like a cheap scheme to inflate numbers.

[eestlinc]

you could stop showing what members are online at the top of the forum. If you really need to know what staff members are online, click the forum leaders page and see who has a yellow chocobo.

edit: or just PM BoB with any questions or requests.

[Yamaneko]

Or tell people that the limit was raised to 30 minutes because it allows people to be away from their computers for longer time without resetting the read post indicator. And tell them that we don't need a scheme to show that a lot of people come here because a lot of people do come here.

[Loony BoB]

But we're showing 300 members online.. that's ridiculous. Of course anyone with half a brain would know that was false. It looks like a cheap scheme to inflate numbers.

Having said that, it was 212 not long ago. Before the server move, it was something like 90. No matter how you look at that side of things, there's something that's been giving us massive boosts of members lately. It might be one of those lurkers that has a different IP every page they download. Because our usual peak amount, such as last night, isn't more than 150 even after 30 minutes.

EDIT: I just checked. It's the Yahoo! Slurp Spider, with about 50-100 logins.

[crono_logical]

Yeah, I think people need to distinguish active users and active members - the x members and y lurkers bit in brackets at the top is more informative, it's a shame it doesn't give the peaks for those two as that would be more useful

[Flying Mullet]

We could of course compromise at 23 minutes. 23 is my favourite number.

Why not 23:23?