Splitting the map thread

[Ian the Admin]

Just as an FYI, in the future I will be splitting the map thread into two halves (one with the first 5000 posts and one with the rest), and locking the first half. It's getting big enough to be annoying for performance reasons.

 

[EvolvedSaurian]

Let me be the first.

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

 

[Magnificate]

Maybe we can try reforming the Map Thread:
- Delete all post with no maps.
- Move all comments to posts with relevant maps.
Or would it be too difficult and troublesome to do? If so, I support the decision.

 

[Thande]

It's the end of an era, but at least it seems a sensible enough approach.

 

[DaSla]

it makes sense to do this, its not like any new maps will be posted in the older parts of the threads. and Updates will just be part of new posts.

 

[Nekromans]

Splitting the map thread? N00b.

 

[Thande]

Splitting the map thread? N00b.

You like to live dangerously, don't you, Nek?

 

[Agentdark]

I am fine with this

 

[Wendell]

I am fine with this as well. Although, I have a question. Will the locked thread of 5000 eventually grow to thousands of more posts, so to always keep the open Map Thread fresh?

 

[Ian the Admin]

I am fine with this as well. Although, I have a question. Will the locked thread of 5000 eventually grow to thousands of more posts, so to always keep the open Map Thread fresh?

What will happen is that I will create a "Map Thread II" which is not locked, move the last 1000+ posts from the old map thread into it, and discussion can go on there. "Map Thread I" or whatever will contain the first 5000 posts and will not accept new posts.

 

[Shadow Knight]

What will happen is that I will create a "Map Thread II" which is not locked, move the last 1000+ posts from the old map thread into it, and discussion can go on there. "Map Thread I" or whatever will contain the first 5000 posts and will not accept new posts.

I'll support this but could you perhaps sticky the first map thread to prevent it from disappearing into the nether regions of the board?

 

[Hapsburg]

Maybe we can try reforming the Map Thread:
- Delete all post with no maps.
- Move all comments to posts with relevant maps.
Or would it be too difficult and troublesome to do? If so, I support the decision.

No...that will just make it suck. The comments are what we post our maps for. No comments = no reason to post maps = map thread dies.
Ian's idea makes more sense. No one really replies to those first 5000 posts, really. Splitting it would make it easier to manage and look through.

 

[Nicole]

I wonder... including the maps, how large is the map thread? (in bytes)

 

[Diamond]

Hey, it had to end sometime...

I'm just proud that I originated one of only two threads that Ian had to lock due to size constraints.

 

[EvolvedSaurian]

What will happen is that I will create a "Map Thread II" which is not locked, move the last 1000+ posts from the old map thread into it, and discussion can go on there. "Map Thread I" or whatever will contain the first 5000 posts and will not accept new posts.

And when MTII gets to 5000, will that be locked too?

 

[Ian the Admin]

I wonder... including the maps, how large is the map thread? (in bytes)

The total size of attachments on the board as a whole is 1.3 gigabytes. I actually don't know exactly how much of that the map thread is, but it's a significant fraction.

 

[fortyseven]

Good idea Ian. Sticky Map Thread I though.

What happened to Mapism? No one talks about it anymore.

Ian, would it be possible to see other member's attachment lists?

 

[Nekromans]

You like to live dangerously, don't you, Nek?

Bungee-jumping, taunting the Admin... All in a day's work.

 

[TheLoneAmigo]

Instead of stickying Map Thread I, why not just put a link to it in the first page of the New Cartography Thread?

 

[Thande]

Instead of stickying Map Thread I, why not just put a link to it in the first page of the New Cartography Thread?

That's a good idea.

3.5 GIGAbytes??