Thread page length 10 or 20 posts?
 

Hi all,

I've been thinking about changing the number of posts per page in a thread to 10. Here is my reasoning:

• Shorter page loads
• Easier to find posts
• More digestible

However, I thought you might have some opinions, so, here's a poll.

Please do state your reasoning.

Nah, keep it at 20. I don't find pages take too long to load. I digest things just fine thank you.

My preference is less clicking, more reading. I like to be able to see what earlier posters have said in the thread. I would much rather not have to keep flipping between pages.

I think they're valid reasons to go lower, particularly since so many threads have lots of pictures in them.

I only say this because:

Anyone who wants to override the default setting to view more posts/page can do so through the User CP anyway. I've set mine higher than the forum default because I'm on high speed.

It'll also potentially reduce bandwidth costs from the high number of visitors we get who arrive via a Google search but only look at one page.

I personally run at 40 ppp. I think reducing the default to 10 might help with your bandwidth costs though.

I like 20. But I voted 10 to reduce the load time for them Googlers.

i voted 10 for Default.
I am going to up mine to 40 ( high speed)
but can see the Googler only needing 10 posts to get Hooked.

Steve

I think we'll move to 10 this evening and see what happens. At least we know registered members won't be inconvenienced if they don't like it.

Hello -

I voted 20, but I want even more. I would actually prefer to have this be a programmed attribute associated with your personal account preferences for max freedom (but this is more work for you). If you're not logged in, you would get 10 or 20 by default. If you are logged in, you get your preference.

CarloSW2

I set mine to the max per page on all the forums where that's an option. Fewer page loads that way. I'm willing to wait a little longer to get there.

Gee, first I voted (20), then I read the posts. Can't unvote :(
If I could change history, I'd go with the fewer-posts-per-page-because-of-googlers-vs-bandwidth club, but privately have more posts per page (20 seems fine for me). But I say

DEFAULT=10

Ya, I would change my vote if I could too... Very valid point here!!

I like the idea of switching it to 10. After I heard about how registered users can change it I bumped mine up to 40 (I like to skim back when something new pops up). I think setting it to 10 would reduce bandwidth from googlers and bump up advertising income for EM from them (more pages=more ads).

Well I run at 40ppp. I prefer to not click as much, but just read. However, your initial statement is misleading. You neglect to mention "default" ppp. Your reasons for changing to 10ppp are valid and good ones, and the fact that I can change them as a registered user is great, but your question didn't say that, so I voted 20. For the reasons of guests and bandwidth, 10ppp is a better number.

If you change the question to "default" length, change my vote to 10 :)
otherwise if the option was there I'd do 100 posts per page.

edit: haha! seems I'm not the only one confused about the default length thing. Best get a fixin'!

Oops, I did what several others did.
Change my vote to 10 also.
Duh Grampa

Let us better get attractive enough to retain their interest for more than one pages...

MetroMPG, being the boss does not mean you have to think like those business school types are thinking these days.. Wrong fashion?:rolleyes:

Actually, Ben corrected me by IM after I posted that. Looks like most of the Googlers are looking at more than 1 page after all. Yay.

well snap. Guess it should stick to 20 then, eh? (eh?) A good compromise between bandwidth and information.

I prefer 10 ppp on mobile devices. I guess not many people visit EM from a pda or a phone though.

If 10 is more efficient, we all out to agree with it. Settings in the CP can be changed to make it more for yourself if you wish so go for it.

I'd like to see an option to see _all_ replies to a thread on one page.

Your 10-posts-loads-faster logic is actually less than ideal for those who are on limited bandwidth. I often use my cell as a tethered modem when I'm away from home, and the bandwidth isn't the greatest.

So, I'd like to be able to click on a thread, open it in a new tab, and do something else while it takes 30sec to load _all_ replies. Then, I'll come back and read the whole thread.