Ways to decrease bandwidth?

With so many users and posts, even little things will make a large overall impact on bandwidth I bet. I used to read the Straight Dope message board. Now THAT was a big board. Over a million total posts. They had bandwidth problems too and they solved them by an unwritten understanding. Below are some of their "rules" and some suggestions of mine.

1. As the default, check the disable smilies box and uncheck the add signature box when posting. The smilies may not be that big, but when LOTS of people look at them and they are posted a LOT, then that bandwidth will add up. Both of these suggestions stem from the SDMB where you were told off by mods if you put your sig more than once in the thread. I am now getting into the habbit of NOT including my sig if it is already on that page. Also, it was understood that you don't use smilies unless you have been there a while and the smilie made a difference in the post.

2. Lets try to keep pictures down, or at least smaller size. We should put up small pics, and then link to larger pics if people desire. This also makes it easier on dialup users (not me anymore ). We should also try to not pollute with tons of pics or stuff along that line.

3. It is early in the morning and I am still not fully awake yet, so I can't think of anything else. Other suggestions are welcome.

I am trying to do my part by only putting my sig on once from now on, and I always disable smilies in my posts. Sure, that may only make a 3 or 4 kilobyte difference in my post, but if a hundred people read that post, that is quite a bit of bandwidth (yeah, right, a hundred people reading my post, lol).

Spudgunr

One thing I notice is if you quote someone who did post an image, please remove the image from the your post. Unless maybe it is from another thread. Duplicate images don't really help, but I am not sure if they add to the bandwidth issue since most of the images are on other servers.

Spud -

You make great points, and even I sometimes turn my sig off (like now since I'm feeling guilty). The main reason I leave my sig on is to allow me to find the point in the thread where I last read. I just look for the little EV, and I'm there. If there was a higher-tech way to accomplish this task, I'd be all over it.

Smilies I can live without. Emoticons worked for many eons (in internet terms) and I'd be just as happy if the Graemlins didn't exist. If they are a big source of bandwidth consumption, maybe the option of using them should just be removed from the board.

Pictures are one of the great resources here, but there are many ways to save bandwidth while using them. Some folks quote picture posts, and actually include the picture one, two, three more times. Certainly no need for that. If the jpgs are compressed and sized well, I think inline shots are great. Can't imagine living without some of the beamshots, and it is so great to be able to referece them without having to link to another page. A picture is worth more than a thousand words - but they certainly take more bandwidth, don't they? ** Edit - I see Brock slid in there and said the same thing whilst I was typing **

Of course the easiest way to fix the bandwidth problem is to ban me from posting every other day or so. <grin> Just thought I'd bring that up before any of my "friends" find this thread...

Happy egg-hunting BTW.

I`m pretty sure that everyone who posts pictures here are not adding to the bandwidth consumption as they reside on other servers, so are using those site`s bandwidth instead. All the BB software does is tell your browser where the pictures go on the page and where to download them from (you tell it to do this using the tag). This is why Tripod-Free, Geosh*tties and most of the other freebie web hosts and photo sites won`t allow external hotlinking any more- Tripod call it "Bandwidth Stealing" and it costs them money that they otherwise get by showing ads on your pages.


The point about Smileys is a good one. I`m afraid I`m guilty of over-using them and I`ll try to cut back (honest), but you gotta admit, they`re catchy.
Two things you could do- first, lose "instant gremlins" as it`s all too tempting to click`em into your posts. If they aren`t there all winking at you, you`d be less tempted to use so many.

Second, lose Topic/Message icons altogether. All this code:

[I]<TD valign="top" valign="bottom" align="center" bgcolor="#f7f7ff">
<ACRONYM TITLE="This is an icon describing the mood of the topic or describing information contained in the topic. For more info on icons, read our FAQ.">
<IMG SRC="http://www.candlepowerforums.com/ubb/icons/icon1.gif" BORDER="0"></ACRONYM>
</TD>[/I]

is required to show [B]one[/B] measly little icon, and there`s about 50 of those per topic list page isn`t there? Not to mention the 15 per page of message threads. Most people seem to leave them set on that little grey page icon too, so hows about turning that feature off for a month and see who moans. SFDB doesn`t use them and I think it works just fine. I don`t much care for their color scheme but thats another story....


Just a couple of things I think would work. Whaddya think?


<insert smileys here....nah, not this time!>

I thought pics did take up space. I thought that is why they were disabled for a while some time ago. http://www.candlepowerforums.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=26&t=000032

Our leader says: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> The bandwidth CPF is using is killing my wallet. So for the time being I'm shutting off the ability to use html and images in posts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now, I assume that if the images didn't take up bandwidth, then he wouldn't have turned them off. Then again, you never know. Anyway, I am going to go back on sanding the copper pipe involved in my new light so it is the nice copper color instead of the brownish color the outside was.

Spud

When I asked my host if pictures linked from other hosts added to my bandwidth he said yes. Now I'm wondering if there's misunderstanding there because of the poor wording of my question. I'll ask for clarification. I'll ask if pictures linked from other hosts add to my bandwidth costs.

The biggest thing member here can do is cut down on the uneccesary quoting of previous posts. Especially if it's a response right after the one quoted. Or if it's a huge post and the quote is used but to only answer a small portion of that post.

The extra unnecessary quoting doesn't add much to the disk space used. I have plenty of that. But it does add to the bandwidth everytime someone opens a thread.

Regarding whether images affect the bandwidth utilisation...
After checking the source code for pages with posts containing images, the code presented to the browser definitely uses the original image URL - so the image is coming directly from the site hosting it, and should have nothing to do with the CPF site bandwidth.

The same happens with signature pics - the link to the original site is what is in the code the brower renders.
To give an example, if I do a post with an image from my ISP server, http://www.eurus.dti.ne.jp/~gbell/whatever.jpg, when someone views that post, their browser will be given the above link, and automatically retrieve the image from my server and render it on the page. All it gets from the CPF server is the link.

To summarise, as I see it there is no way images included in posts should make any difference whatsoever to CPF host bandwidth...

Graham

I think Chris M. is on to something there. You wouldn't think all the little icons take up that much space, but I bet that really adds up in the long run. I see 31 differnt little icons right now, and even if they are only 10k each that ends up being 310k just to post a message, hummmm something to think about...

That would make sense. In fact, those who do want to use smileys etc can always use the ones available from other sites (as do the people who use the more "interesting" smileys..)

Graham

I need some clarification on the quote thing. Does this mean when you use the quote feature it uses up bandwith kind of like a picture? Would not using the quote feature and just typing it in or cut and pasting such as:

David W. said: "The biggest thing member here can do is cut down on the unnecessary quoting of previous posts. Especially if it's a response right after the one quoted. Or if it's a huge post and the quote is used but to only answer a small portion of that post. "

Would that be more efficient?

I think a list of official things we can do to cut down on bandwith could be followed and still retain the effectiveness of this forum.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tree:
I need some clarification on the quote thing. Does this mean when you use the quote feature it uses up bandwith kind of like a picture? Would not using the quote feature and just typing it in or cut and pasing such as:

David W. said: "The biggest thing member here can do is cut down on the uneccesary quoting of previous posts. Especially if it's a response right after the one quoted. Or if it's a huge post and the quote is used but to only answer a small portion of that post. "

Would that be more efficient?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an example of poor use. I'm replying right after your post. But I quoted the entire thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darell:
Spud -

You make great points, and even I sometimes turn my sig off (like now since I'm feeling guilty). The main reason I leave my sig on is to allow me to find the point in the thread where I last read. I just look for the little EV, and I'm there. If there was a higher-tech way to accomplish this task, I'd be all over it.

Smilies I can live without. Emoticons worked for many eons (in internet terms) and I'd be just as happy if the Graemlins didn't exist. If they are a big source of bandwidth consumption, maybe the option of using them should just be removed from the board.

Pictures are one of the great resources here, but there are many ways to save bandwidth while using them. Some folks quote picture posts, and actually include the picture one, two, three more times. Certainly no need for that. If the jpgs are compressed and sized well, I think inline shots are great. Can't imagine living without some of the beamshots, and it is so great to be able to referece them without having to link to another page. A picture is worth more than a thousand words - but they certainly take more bandwidth, don't they? ** Edit - I see Brock slid in there and said the same thing whilst I was typing **

Of course the easiest way to fix the bandwidth problem is to ban me from posting every other day or so. <grin> Just thought I'd bring that up before any of my "friends" find this thread...

Happy egg-hunting BTW.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can I see a pic of your EV?

(Here is another example. I'm only replying to part of darell's post. But I quoted the entire thing.)

Entire posts can be quoted by clicking on the post's icon. Once clicked you can change the text inside the quote codes.

Parts of posts can be quoted by copying and pasting the text inside the codes ([QUOTE&#93 [/QUOTE]) that comes up when the button is pressed.

Poor use of quoting eats up bandwidth because it's more text to load than is necessary.

So the bigger the quote the more bandwith gets used?

Yup.

I did not think about using the quote button when I am in the reply page. That seems easier anyway. I'll keep my sig off also.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tree:
I did not think about using the quote button when I am in the reply page. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You actually have to use the quote button BEFORE you get to the reply page. It is either or. Unless you click reply, then manually add a quote.

Heck, I'm turning my self-hosted sig back ON, until I learn otherwise. (I don't want David to have withdrawls about not seeing my EV1 every few minutes). This is a good learning experience for all of us. Good thread.

OK, I've got this far.

If you have a signature line, and don't want to lose it altogether, then just allow yourself to use it only once in each topic you post in.
If you do another post in the same topic, then before you click the "Add Reply" button, untick the -
"Show Signature: include your profile signature."

That cuts down some on bandwidth.

Then, avoid using CPF's own smileys, or "Instant Graemlins", again, to cut down on bandwidth.
But Smileys pasted in from other sites don't add to CPF's bandwidth demands.

Not using the instant smileys is gonna be a drag for me, (I've kind of got used to their usefulness).
I suggest that humourous asides and teasing are accompanied by a Smiley, just to avoid misunderstandings. Or don't some people use [J/K] to underline that it's a joke ?

Quoting makes demands on bandwidth.
So, common sense says, don't quote if your post immediately follows the post you're answering to.
And if you do quote, only use the necessary section of the original post, not the whole thing.
(I think that in that sort of case, cutting down on the wordcount of a post, it is a good idea to use either the < and > symbols, or a series of full stops, like ... to show that you're taking only a part of the whole original.)

But 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 lines that come with the {quote} option ?

lightlover

I think it'll just be easier if I don't post anything of relevance.

1. It will be shorter
2. Everybody is used to that from me already
3. Nobody will bother quoting me
4. I'll have more free time.

Win-win-win-win as far as I can tell. <grin goes here>

- Darell

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darell:
I think it'll just be easier if I don't post anything of relevance.

- Darell<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nooo..don't do that! Half the fun is searching through your posts for the 'gold' stuff. Although, there's plenty of it (gold stuff that is..)

Graham