WTF is up with >1000

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
Folks,

As I'm sure at least some of you have surmised, the reason for the (maybe temporary change) is that some of our users have decided that large view counts, even if artificially created, are a good thing. Unfortunately twice in the last 3 weeks this has increased the load on the forums to the point where they become unusable. This wastes all of our time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can we at least increase the >1k to something useful like 5k? That would limit the meaningless refreshes to increase view count without ruining the feature.

[Daddy Warbucks]

Does it have to be ">1000". That looks weird. How about "1000+"?

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
Folks,

As I'm sure at least some of you have surmised, the reason for the (maybe temporary change) is that some of our users have decided that large view counts, even if artificially created, are a good thing. Unfortunately twice in the last 3 weeks this has increased the load on the forums to the point where they become unusable. This wastes all of our time.

[/ QUOTE ]

by this logic, post count should also be turned into >1k. I imagine people posting meaningless stuff to up their count is much more common then people refreshing threads just to up the views.

And in both cases, if there is such a problem and it needs to be addressed a far better solution would be to get rid of the counts altogether.

[AquaSwing]

[ QUOTE ]
Folks,

As I'm sure at least some of you have surmised, the reason for the (maybe temporary change) is that some of our users have decided that large view counts, even if artificially created, are a good thing. Unfortunately twice in the last 3 weeks this has increased the load on the forums to the point where they become unusable. This wastes all of our time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those crazy teenagers!

[solids]

[ QUOTE ]
Folks,

As I'm sure at least some of you have surmised, the reason for the (maybe temporary change) is that some of our users have decided that large view counts, even if artificially created, are a good thing. Unfortunately twice in the last 3 weeks this has increased the load on the forums to the point where they become unusable. This wastes all of our time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh, I knew this was punishment for BBV4L's retarded shenanigans. How about a compromise by chaging it from 1000 to a higher number, say 10 or 15K? Seems like a win-win for everyone.

[XXXNoahXXX]

Is there any way to change this setting only for the forums that are causing the problems?

Also, agreed that 1000+ would be better, or even just "1000", as I'm pretty sure people will get the idea.

[evil twin]

My vote goes with getting rid of the column altogether.

[Mike Haven]

I don't have a great connection at the best of times, but, fwiw, since this change, my Twoplustwo-surfing experience has been improved manyfold as the page-loading time has speeded (sped? spud?) up enormously.

If this has happened for everyone, after the recent thrill of anticipation for tub's 10,000th post we will be celebrating his 11,000th post in a matter of only a few weeks.

[Lori]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Folks,

As I'm sure at least some of you have surmised, the reason for the (maybe temporary change) is that some of our users have decided that large view counts, even if artificially created, are a good thing. Unfortunately twice in the last 3 weeks this has increased the load on the forums to the point where they become unusable. This wastes all of our time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh, I knew this was punishment for BBV4L's retarded shenanigans. How about a compromise by chaging it from 1000 to a higher number, say 10 or 15K? Seems like a win-win for everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

You still get the flame at 15k.

Lori

[metsandfinsfan]

now it's 1000+ is this supposed to be better?