Ways to decrease bandwidth?

Candle Power Forums

Help Support Candle Power:

From my post above:

"I'm still confused on the way to quote.
If we do it in bold, like -
Quote from so-and so

is that worse than using the "Reply with Quote" option ?

What about if you use the two horizontal lines that come with the {quote} option ?

lightlover"

Anyone know ?
 
I wouldn`t have thought so, it can`t be more than a few bytes of code either way. If we just follow the suggestion of our Leader, and not quote whole posts when we just want to refer to one part, that should be OK. After all, it`s the smileys that take the most bandwidth. They`re only small files but they do add up.

wink.gif
 
I don't like it when people use the quote for long posts. I may get itchy Moderator fingers from now on.

Regarding the bandwitch problems, I think it's the LEDoholics that are to blame!
wink.gif


Al
tongue.gif
 
Did we ever get a straight answer on the picture-posting deal? Which, BTW, includes many of our more colorful sigs.

I've always thought that the pictures' host takes the hit. So is it true that posting a picture hosted elsewhere takes less CPF bandwidth than does a smiley?

Can we take a vote to rid the board of the Graemlins? Somewhat of a smiley exorcism...
 
I posted about this earlier, based on the page code which my brower sees, it is getting all images from the original servers, not the CPF server. So pictures shouldn't make any difference. It's the CPF 'Instant Graemlins' which would add a bit.

Graham
 
I don`t think we need to lose them altogether. Just the ones allocated to topics and posts. Fun though they are, they don`t seem like such the important part of our BB. The SFDB doesn`t use them and I don`t really miss them when I`m over there. As for the ones within posts, the instant smileys are so tempting, so if that instant feature was lost, fewer would be used. Keep them avaliable to be used in posts, just do it the hard way (e, remember what symbol/code equals what smiley) instead of just clicking them. It also saves loadig time for the "post a reply" page- currently it has to load 31 smiley icons and over a dialup, that can take some time.


:smiley:
 
IF YOU CARE ABOUT CPF READ THIS TOPIC RE: CUTTING OUR BANDWIDTH AND THEREFORE RUNNING COSTS.
(Just doing it in capitals to catch the eye in the Today's Active list)


Good one Graham, I couldn't find this anywhere. And it was in the CAFÉ too ......

lightlover
 
Really, the only thing we've agreed upon here is to lay off the graemlins a bit, and reduce the quote volume.

Are we pretty confident that images are a non-issue since the individual's server takes the hit? That's the way I'm operating still...

I keep worrying that some people haven't yet seen my great sig... :)
 
one way to reduce bandwith use of the cpf-server is
to use caching functions of your browser and use a proxy server wich does caching also (your browser -> proxy -> cpf-server).
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darell:


I've always thought that the pictures' host takes the hit. So is it true that posting a picture hosted elsewhere takes less CPF bandwidth than does a smiley?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

posting picture hosted elsewhere takes no bandwith from the cpf-server
 
I will put forward my points from a while ago, again- see if anyone else agrees with me.


From what I can understands, there is probably a significant amount of bandwitdth used to host the Smilies and Topic Icons. To save bandwidth, I suggest trying the following:

1. Remove Topic Icons altogether. Sure, they are cute and quite fun, but are otherwise fairly meaningless and from common observation, many people don`t bother with them and just leave it set to the default parchment-thingy icon. There is a lot of HTML coding on each Forum list page, and each discussion page, that goes into supporting these regardless of what they`re set to. Not to forget the images themselves, even if only a few K each- it all adds up. On each forum topic list, on each discussion page and every time anyone goes to make a new post or edit one, they are called from the server and of course- appear above where you type. I think we could easilly live without them.

2. Reduce the use of Smilies. I don`t mean stop them altogether or reduce the current images-per-post count from 8 (as this would affect photo posting too), but rather make them harder to use. Instant-Gramelins is a great and handy feature but it is all too enticing to click a bunch of them into your posts when maybe a simple smile, "eek" or frown would do. I`ll admit I do use them often but try not to be excessive. Removing the instant-graemlins feature will discourage their use- if you can`t see`em you`re less inclined to use`em unless you absoloutely want to. Every time you go to make a post, all 11 of them are loaded so if they weren`t there, that`s another lessening of the bandwidth.

These two measures- removing topic icons and trying to reduce the use of Smilies, will not only save bandwidth but speed page loading times on slow dialup connections too. A lot of us here use dialup, a lot of us here have to wait a dog`s age for all the little faces to appear and the damn pages to finally stay still (no height/width numbers are coded into each image`s HTML tag so the page length jumps and jerks around while they load- browsers don`t know how much room to leave for each one so iinitially leave a default space- which is always different to the actual image) so you can click a page number or "quote" button, etc.

I think it would be a good idea to try this, even if only for a month- and see how many miss the icons and instant-smilies, compared to those who don`t miss them. Weigh that up against the bandwidth usage for the trial period and decide whether or not to put them back. I think you will be surprised at the savings.


Along with these technical solotions, of course CPF users can do our part too.
-Try to avoid excessive editing and re-editing (take your time to proofread your posts and check your coding if any is used).
-Try to avoid excessive quoting- delete parts of post quotes that are not relevent to your reply.
-Try to avoind using so many smilies!
-Try to avoid posting multiple replies in a row (using "quote" buttons from mutiple messages)- use the inset window at the bottom of the post-reply page to copy/paste quotes should you wish to quote more than one post- it behaves just like any CPF page so you can change pages to find the posts you need.
- Take time to review the list of topics and choose the right forum for your post, to save it from having to be moved thereby using more resources (and taking up our Moderators precious time!).
-and if you can, donate a little to the Boss, or bid up that last brass Arc to a record breaking total!


wink.gif


(see- just one this time!)
 
Chris, I agree - that's a point about the Topic Icons. Hardly anyone seems to use them, so not a great loss to a posts comprehensibility or expressiveness.

I think that within the posts, we do need smileys/emoticons because they can add quite a lot to the meaning of a message, adding some nuances to the "words in black and white" so to speak.

So it is the case that the instant "smileys at a click", hold things up loading and take bandwidth resources.
Would it work if - instead of the auto-function, in that same space there was a simple image showing the smiley available. Next to it, there could be a ":-)" as a reminder of how to add them to a post manually ?

Something that I'd add to your advice on not using too much of a post to quote a particular part. It's a Good Idea to keep any quote to a minimum necessary, or at least delete the irrelevant wordage when you hit "Reply With Quote".
But to be accurate and show a section is out of context, I think it's a good idea to leave a few dots --->> ... to show words are omitted.

Am I right that you're saying that multiple quotes in one post are better put in quotation marks, as "quotation marks ... " ?
Is that better than using an edited down part of a "Reply With Quote" with the lines done automatically ?

If there are a number of people you want to reply to in one topic, then isn't it usually better to answer 2-3 people in one combined post rather than posting the same replies in 2-3 separate posts ?

Suppose - if we went over to simple text labels in a box instead of the icons at the top of each post, the "profile" "email" "pm" icons, would that save space ?

And - what would be the effect if the reading pages were made longer ? I mean, allow more posts per page before they move to page 2 ? Presumably, a short page would load up as quickly, but a longer one would still save a lot of clicking to page 2. Would you save some extra coding space on a long page as opposed to two shorter pages ?

Chris, I volunteered to post a New "Topic - collated notes on saving bandwidth".
However, it's got too complex for me - would you do a topic in the Café summing up the advice for quick reference ? Please ??

lightlover *Whew*
 
maybe we can make the forum-icons more bandwith friendly:

bc_title.jpg

=23453 bytes

bc_topic.jpg

= 7463 bytes

bc_reply.jpg

= 7633

3 icons total 38549 bytes = ca. 37 KB
 
Hmm, thats a good point - that big Ultimate Bulletin Board pic at the top of every page is about 25k - if that could be reduced in size, that would probably save a lot, since it loads for every page.

Graham
 
There a lot of misconceptions from well meaning folks here and I could talk for hours on this subject, but I'll try and sum it up quickly.

Text - about the least bandwidth intensive data.

Topic Icons - not the problem. Whether they are rendered on a page only once or a thousand times, the image is still only downloaded once. However the HTML text (code) that calls the image is repeated. See comment on text above.

Graemlins - lots of disparity here, so I'll provide an example:
icon19.gif
= 265 bytes..
icon18.gif
= 1561 bytes...
Essentially "animation" is the killer here.

Photos - not an issue. I if post an image hosted from MY webspace (or anyone elses), it doesn't consume CPF bandwidth - simple as that..

The bandwidth issues are caused byyyy - U guessed it - site traffic. The bottom line is that if I hit my "refresh" button just once, I'm consuming more bandwidth than all the "emoticons" that you're going to use in any average whole day of putting them into your posts.

Artar is on the right track tho... Many of the images that are contantly reloaded can be run through programs that will optomize size against image quality. Lots of "photo editing" software can acomplish this.

The other option would be to lose the big "Ultimate Bulletin Board" pill icon and use that space to push a similar sized icon that advertizes "FLASHLIGHT SPECIFIC" info. When random advertizing creeps in, no one will click on the icon and it will just **** most folks off. But hey, a site like this costs money to operate. So all I'm saying is that if add's are needed to help pay the bills, then keep it flashlight related. I'm sure that there are a few dealers & vendors that wouldn't mind paying a small reasonable fee to have their link sponsored here.
 
I think one of the biggest consumers of bandwidth for me is the fact that the BB takes me to page ONE every freaking time something happens. When I click on an email notification link for a 30-page thread, I'm taken to page one, then I need to go and load page 30. Then, when I post on page 30, it again takes me back to page 1 (should be cached at this point I guess) and I have to return to page 30 again to make sure my post formatted correctly. Same things happens when I find something interesting in the Most Active Topic list. I'm taken to page one, then need to load the last page... and the process repeats. grumble.

Fix that, and I think we fix a lot. Getting rid of all the little icons has always sounded like a great idea to me. The message icons are typically ignored, and the graemlins are typically overused. When you see ten of of the big grins in a row, you know you've got a problem... I can always add my own ASCII smiles, just like I've done for the past 20 years. We certainly don't need any "instant" graemlins. Get rid of 'em!

Yes I realize it would solve lots of problems if I would just go away... but that ain't gonna happen, so lets keep looking for other solutions. :)
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Graham:
Hmm, thats a good point - that big Ultimate Bulletin Board pic at the top of every page is about 25k - if that could be reduced in size, that would probably save a lot, since it loads for every page.

Graham
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just reduced it and mailed it to my home account. I will post it when I get home because I have to FTP it up to my webspace first. The new image is ONLY - 4112K and that's a lot smaller than 23453K. The physical size is still the same but I used 48% compression. The image quality didn't suffer as bad as you might think...
smile.gif
 
Sounds good - perhaps the other ones (new topic and post reply) could benefit from some compression too?

Darell has a good point too - there is an unnecessary page load every time you post since it automatically goes back to page one, then the poster immediately (99% of us, I'd say) clicks to go to the last page where the post appears.

But I seem to remember DavidW saying something like the patch for that bug requiring the UBB software to be upgraded..
I could be wrong though.

Graham
 
Back
Top