Site connectivity

[Rollory]

This is an issue that has been getting steadily worse.

On average, at any time that I try to connect to any page on giantitp.com (the comics, the forums, whatever) I have about a 50%-70% chance of getting an "unable to connect to site" error. This happens regardless of where I connect from - home, work, library, a site in a neighboring state, wherever.

It isn't that the site is down - repeated attempts to reload the page usually eventually succeed. Often however even if the page does load specific elements - certain images, commonly - do not load, and another reload is necessary to get them to come up. In general it feels like the site is constantly under much heavier load than it is designed for.

It definitely was not this bad when I started reading OOTS about two years ago - then it would only happen immediately after a new comic went up. Now, it is general and consistent.

Is this an issue anybody is looking at? Are there any plans to mirror any of the content, or upgrade the bandwidth, or anything?

[Zherog]

Yes, it's a known problem. The recent thread purge and forum rearranging were the first step towards rectifying the problem. There's more to come, we've been told.

Incidentally...

It isn't that the site is down - repeated attempts to reload the page usually eventually succeed.

This makes the problem worse. The site gets overloaded with requests, which is what causes that error. So hitting refresh in an attempt to get around the problem just creates a bigger bottleneck.

If you get the error, take a break from the site. Come back in 5-10 minutes and try again. You'll seriously be helping reduce stress on the system if you stop the constant refreshing.

[bluewind95]

There's also a few other threads that the mods have replied to. Like this one:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104328 and that deal with this issue. And there's a post in the news section about it and so on. So don't worry. The admins are on the case. In the meantime, we get to do our part and try not to stress the server too much.

[Rollory]

Ok, so, after looking into this some more I am now aware of the SMBG issue, and of the arguments on each side.

Interesting dilemma. Interesting priorities.

If you get the error, take a break from the site. Come back in 5-10 minutes and try again. You'll seriously be helping reduce stress on the system if you stop the constant refreshing.

The only vote I can cast is this: I'm going to disregard this advice.

[Zherog]

Then you'll be contributing to the problem...

[Jimor]

One thing I try to do as much as possible is use the "Back" button on my browser when exiting a thread or subforum. This simply pulls the cached page from the browser instead of making a new call to the server.

Sure, I don't see what's brand spanking new, but when I enter a new subforum, I get a fresh update of threads there anyway, and same with the threads within that subforum, I get any new posts when I enter the "last page" link, or if the page has rolled onto another one, I can see it on the page number links.

Depending on my reading pattern that session, I figure this saves at least 20% of the database calls I'd otherwise make, and sometimes even more.

[Nychta]

The only vote I can cast is this: I'm going to disregard this advice.
Please don't. Constantly refreshing increases the server load, thus increasing the problem. If you leave it for 5 minutes - 5 minutes only! - you have a greater chance of success and you're not adding to the problem.

I mean, it's bad now. Imagine if everyone started refreshing every time they couldn't load a page properly.

[Om]

Please don't. Constantly refreshing increases the server load, thus increasing the problem. If you leave it for 5 minutes - 5 minutes only! - you have a greater chance of successIn fairness o the OP, that logic only holds true if everybody else similarly refrains from refreshing

[insecure]

In fairness o the OP, that logic only holds true if everybody else similarly refrains from refreshing

But on the other hand, if everybody suspects each other of constantly reloading the page and therefore do it themselves, we'll only have created a vicious circle (or whatever those are called).

[Rawhide]

In fairness o the OP, that logic only holds true if everybody else similarly refrains from refreshing

Actually, no. And Zherog/xNadia had it right.

If the server is running slow and timing out, refreshing just makes the problem worse, for you and for everyone else. It's the people who simply must have the page load now and will keep trying and trying, over and over, that make the server slower and make the problem last longer. If we can get enough people to simply stop and wait a while, come back in half an hour or so, when the server starts to run slow, the server wouldn't get as slow as it does and it wouldn't last as long. Unfortunately for servers, once they start to overload, people do start refreshing, which adds to the overload of the server, which causes more people to start refreshing, which adds to the overload of the server, which... (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2176.html)

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need to ask this of our visitors, the server would be able to handle the load or would be able to be upgraded. Unfortunately, this is not the case, so we need to ask you to be considerate and fair to the other people who use this site and encourage you to play this part in keeping the site running.

[enh]

The two questions that keep coming to my mind are:

1) what keeps causing the browser to decide that nothing is cached?

For example, all the "first/previous/next/last" icons get fetched... slowly... but when I click on the next comic, they all get reloaded again. Or they try to, anyhow; about 80% of the time the connections time out on any given icon and it sits as a broken image, even when the same icon was displayed fine a few seconds ago.

Even something like viewing comic #N, then #N+1, then going back to #N, causes the comic graphic itself to be re-fetched... which has the same failure rate as any other graphic.

The browser's set to cache everything as much as possible, and for every site *other* than giantitp.com, it works. For this site, and this site only, none of the really high-bandwidth content gets cached. I don't know why.

2) are there mirrors of the OOTS/Erfworld comics anywhere?

[Prak]

yeah, I'm getting "The server is taking too long to respond" messages a lot. It's a damned pain in the ass.

[Vonriel]

2) are there mirrors of the OOTS/Erfworld comics anywhere?

There may be one for Erfworld, but I know that the Giant himself has said before that reposting OotS to another site is not allowed. I'm fairly certain that a mirror site would fall under this.

[Alysar]

Maybe rich could put a 'Donate' button on the site so we can chip in to get him a better server.

[Keris Rain]

Maybe rich could put a 'Donate' button on the site so we can chip in to get him a better server.

This has been suggested in the past, and Rich decided against it. People who donate might believe they are then 'entitled' to regular updates, as they, in their mind, paid for it.
This is something Rich wants to avoid, so donations seem out.

[Alysar]

This has been suggested in the past, and Rich decided against it. People who donate might believe they are then 'entitled' to regular updates, as they, in their mind, paid for it.
This is something Rich wants to avoid, so donations seem out.

Generally, aren't these the same people who feel that they are entitled to regular updates whether they donate or not?

If we were paying an actually subscription fee to access the comics, THEN I would feel entitled to regular updates. If I were to donate money to upgrade the server, the only thing I would feel 'entitled' to (after the server actually gets upgraded) would be quick connectivity to the site.

[douglas]

This has been suggested in the past, and Rich decided against it. People who donate might believe they are then 'entitled' to regular updates, as they, in their mind, paid for it.
This is something Rich wants to avoid, so donations seem out.
My question is would it be any different if the hypothetical donation page had a great big ridiculously obvious announcement that it was specifically for the forum server(s)? Then he could just tell all the entitlement claimers that yes, they are entitled to something - forum servers of whatever quality and quantity the sum total of donations is enough to pay for, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with the comic's update schedule.

[Keris Rain]

What we will NOT be doing is a straight donation drive for the server; in the past, donations have led those who donated to believe that they had a right to demand faster updates to the comic, and that's just not going to happen. More likely would be some sort of low-price additional product whose revenue would specifically be earmarked for "funding the server". That way, anyone who purchsed it would actually get something tangible for their money, in addition to knowing that the server problems will be improved.

This is from a thread about a year ago, so things might have changed since then.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Generally, aren't these the same people who feel that they are entitled to regular updates whether they donate or not?
Generally. But then these people will feel they have cause to be more vocal, and, as such, the number of complaints would go up.

My question is would it be any different if the hypothetical donation page had a great big ridiculously obvious announcement that it was specifically for the forum server(s)?
No. People have a tendency to ignore disclaimers.

Then he could just tell all the entitlement claimers that yes, they are entitled to something - forum servers of whatever quality and quantity the sum total of donations is enough to pay for, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with the comic's update schedule.
I believe the idea is that the Giant has better things to do with his time than tell off a bunch of folks with a false sense of entitlement. Even shooting off a canned response takes a small bit of time.

[The Giant]

Is this an issue anybody is looking at?

No. It never occurred to us to even question why a stiff breeze sends our server crashing faster than the Dow Jones until now. :smallannoyed:

For the 500th time, then, for everyone:
Yes, we are aware of the problems with the site.
Yes, we are working on some ideas to fix them.
No, we do not want to hear anyone's advice on how to fix them.
Yes, we are currently running the best single-server available.
No, we cannot afford to move to a multi-server solution.
No, we will not be adding advertising to the site.
No, we will not be accepting donations for a new forum server.
Yes, we may still have another fundraising option in the future, but it will take time to organize (since this issue only reasserted itself around the end of last year).
No, we will not be eliminating SMBG just because some people don't like it.
Yes, we are discussing new regulations to make SMBG less of a drain on the server.
Yes, this would all be a lot better if everyone stopped refreshing the boards more than once every ten minutes or so.
Yes, to everyone reading this, that includes YOU.
Did I miss anything?

[afroakuma]

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I think that's about as clear as it gets.

[Oregano]

May be it would be good to put that as a forum announcement Rich or sticky it so that people won't keep making new threads about the issues because that's not helping the server either.

[afroakuma]

Concurred.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Although I concur that a standing announcement that won't get bumped could be handy, a lot of people won't read it. It seems a lot of people just scan past the announcements and Stickies.

Heck, there are six threads (including this one), all near the top of the list on the first page here in Board Issues all talking about site connectivity or donations. So at least when it comes to board issues, people aren't even reading the regular threads.

[Admiral_Kelly]

These are going to be my last thoughts on this issue. After this I have nothing more to say about the server. So without further ado, hear me out.

I understand this issue is being taken up in far more detail with the people who run this website and thus in a much better position to so than I, but, as someone who would like to see an end to the server issues, I see the current plans to fix the server problem which Rich has presented as illogical. Many, many people on this site have either expressed interest in giving donations expressed interest in having banner adds so the site can maintain itself expressed interest in contributing in some other way.I understand Rich does want to run a donation-free banner-free site; however, it does not add up for him to do so at this point with the site constantly going down and his vocal fans wanting some change so they can continue to see the product without sacrifice of other services. While it is true 95% of readers do not use the forums, we cannot know whether they disagree or do not disagree on the matter. It would not be unwise to assume those who hold views of wanting to maintain the site represent, statistically, a percentage of the overall readership.

Yes, I understand previously Rich has said the forums will be locked down first before donation buttons or adds are put on the site. Yes, I understand Rich and Co. do not want the forums to be taken down. Most importantly yes, I also get this is Rich Burlew's site. However, this does not mean his reasoning is sound logic.

Anyway, these are my final thoughts and I hope they are taken into consideration. Either way, I wish Rich and the mods best of luck with getting the server running smoothly with whatever method they do so choose.

[Alysar]

No. It never occurred to us to even question why a stiff breeze sends our server crashing faster than the Dow Jones until now. :smallannoyed:

For the 500th time, then, for everyone:
Yes, we are aware of the problems with the site.
Yes, we are working on some ideas to fix them.
No, we do not want to hear anyone's advice on how to fix them.
Yes, we are currently running the best single-server available.
No, we cannot afford to move to a multi-server solution.
No, we will not be adding advertising to the site.
No, we will not be accepting donations for a new forum server.
Yes, we may still have another fundraising option in the future, but it will take time to organize (since this issue only reasserted itself around the end of last year).
No, we will not be eliminating SMBG just because some people don't like it.
Yes, we are discussing new regulations to make SMBG less of a drain on the server.
Yes, this would all be a lot better if everyone stopped refreshing the boards more than once every ten minutes or so.
Yes, to everyone reading this, that includes YOU.
Did I miss anything?

Ah. Well, I suppose that settles things.


What's SMBG?

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Ah. Well, I suppose that settles things.


What's SMBG?

Silly Message Board Games...

It's down near the bottom, extremely popular with some readers, extremely dumb and annoying to others. It also eats up a big chunk of the bandwith, showing it's popularity, which in turn annoys the "more serious" posters...

Personally, I don't use the SMBG Boards, but I can't see denying them to anyone else. But that's just me...

[Alysar]

Silly Message Board Games...

It's down near the bottom, extremely popular with some readers, extremely dumb and annoying to others. It also eats up a big chunk of the bandwith, showing it's popularity, which in turn annoys the "more serious" posters...

Personally, I don't use the SMBG Boards, but I can't see denying them to anyone else. But that's just me...

I'm familiar with the board, I just didn't make the connection with the acronym.

[The Giant]

There are some very good financial reasons why it's a bad idea to fund a permanent ongoing expense with a burst of one-time voluntary donations, but on the philosophical side of things, this is as good an example of what I don't want to see around here as I could imagine. Everyone who says there wouldn't be a sense of entitlement from donators, look closely, because here it is, staring us all in the face:

These are going to be my last thoughts on this issue. After this I have nothing more to say about the server. So without further ado, hear me out.

I understand this issue is being taken up in far more detail with the people who run this website and thus in a much better position to so than I, but, as someone who would like to see an end to the server issues, I see the current plans to fix the server problem which Rich has presented as illogical. Many, many people on this site have either expressed interest in giving donations expressed interest in having banner adds so the site can maintain itself expressed interest in contributing in some other way.I understand Rich does want to run a donation-free banner-free site; however, it does not add up for him to do so at this point with the site constantly going down and his vocal fans wanting some change so they can continue to see the product without sacrifice of other services. While it is true 95% of readers do not use the forums, we cannot know whether they disagree or do not disagree on the matter. It would not be unwise to assume those who hold views of wanting to maintain the site represent, statistically, a percentage of the overall readership.

Yes, I understand previously Rich has said the forums will be locked down first before donation buttons or adds are put on the site. Yes, I understand Rich and Co. do not want the forums to be taken down. Most importantly yes, I also get this is Rich Burlew's site. However, this does not mean his reasoning is sound logic.

Anyway, these are my final thoughts and I hope they are taken into consideration. Either way, I wish Rich and the mods best of luck with getting the server running smoothly with whatever method they do so choose.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Exhibit A in the "Case Against Donations".

The above poster already feels such entitlement to the continued existence of this message board that he feels the need to question my reasoning without having given a cent. He claims that I need to change the way I am running this website simply because a number of people wish to continue availing themselves of the services that I have always provided, and that my unwillingness to capitulate represents a failure of logic.

Logic. As if its illogical to have priorities different from those that someone who has never met you has imagined your priorities to be.

The true failure of logic here is the unfounded assumption that the message board has an inalienable right to exist, or that I have any obligation to provide services that I have provided in the past indefinitely into the future. Neither idea is true. I could shut the message board down tomorrow, for no other reason than because I was tired of it. (I'm not going to do that, obviously, but I refuse to give up the right to do that.)

If hundreds or thousands of people donated their hard-earned cash to keep this forum operational at peak efficiency, how much more adamant would they be that I have an obligation to continue operating it at all costs? That I need to consider the opinions of the fans when making decisions about it? How long before there are posts demanding the right to, say, post threads about religion or politics, backed up with demands that they paid good money for this forum to exist, they have the right to talk about whatever they want? Or people asking for refunds if they get themselves banned? How much more angry and alienated (and unwilling to purchase GITP products) would they be if their mild dissatisfaction with the website's service was converted into actual outrage over being "cheated" because I didn't take these wishes into account after accepting their donation?

In short, take the quoted post, multiply it intensity by the number of dollars donated, then add one for every person who donates, and you'll get an idea of what the Board/Site Issues forum (and my email inbox) would look like every day if we had donations (and, to a lesser degree, advertising).

Thanks, but no thanks. We'll fix this problem on our own terms.

[enh]

Heck, there are six threads (including this one), all near the top of the list on the first page here in Board Issues all talking about site connectivity or donations. So at least when it comes to board issues, people aren't even reading the regular threads.

Bad assumption there. :-) Most folk familiar with common forums protocol will either (a) always start a new thread rather than "threadjacking" an existing one, or (b) always try to post in an existing thread if the topic is similar enough. Except that the threads you mention are locked, so the folks from (b) have to fall back to (a) if they want to contribute an idea, even if it's different than the ones in the locked threads.

Now that

* No, we do not want to hear anyone's advice on how to fix them.


has been posted, you could sticky *that*, and then be free to lock/delete such threads. But until the Giant's post, it wasn't fair to claim that people aren't reading threads; we're reading them, we had other suggestions or questions, but the threads are locked. Consider it a measure of how much the fans want to read the comics that we started new threads. :-)

Making his post a sticky announcement would probably go a long ways to reducing the noise.

[Alysar]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Exhibit A in the "Case Against Donations".

.
.
.



Good points, all. Including several things I hadn't considered.

I'm convinced. It's better that Rich not take anyone's money except for when purchasing the merchandise. (Not that he needs my convincing :smallbiggrin:)

[Admiral_Kelly]

:smallmad:

I was not going to post. I do not care if people disagree with me for reason x. I do not care if my ideas are ignored on the server issues. But I will not be strawmaned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman) and made fun of like this because a site administrator disagrees with me after I politely and logically given a counter-argument to his position.

Burlew, you completely missed the point of what I was saying via misrepresentation. First, you have every legal right to do whatever you wish with the site regardless of what donations anyone gives for the support of the site. Second, I was never demanding changes as you say. Third, yes I have gotten a bit heated in my views and I have shot my mouth off while stuffing it with my foot. Nonetheless, I am not some prick who goes around forcing people to alter how they manage their site or business.

I never implied nor meant to infer that 'donation = entitlement'. I was simply stating what many of us fans of your franchise think of the site and using that as a basis for consideration of adds, donations, or some way to raise money for the server. If you disagree with this, as you obviously do, fine. I fully respect that and your decision. But do not use me as some example as to show how stupid people can be after I state a valid case.

[estradling]

I never implied nor meant to infer that 'donation = entitlement'. I was simply stating what many of us fans of your franchise think of the site and using that as a basis for consideration of adds, donations, or some way to raise money for the server. If you disagree with this, as you obviously do, fine. I fully respect that and your decision. But do not use me as some example as to show how stupid people can be after I state a valid case.

In order for your case to be valid you need to counter his counter of your claims of his position being illogical.

Let me clarify... You claimed his position was illogical. He countered with an explanation that was very much logical and dismantled the very foundations of your argument. Instead of rebuilding or coinciding the point you get offended and huffy. You've got no case

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Given that the Forums have been down for the last 13 hours, the thread purge clearly wasn't effective enough. The Forum obviously is in dire need of better support, but between the economy going down the tubes and it being the first quarter of the year, it's understandable that the money to fix it isn't available. I get completely that Rich doesn't want to accept donations or put up ads, but something needs to happen. Whether it's banner ads on the forum, Rich selling something specifically to support the forum that he sees more profits out of than the traditional merch, or even just a constantly updated graph of the last 24 hours of use so that forum regulars can see the issues and change their habits, the status quo is obviously untenable.

I came originally for OotS, but I stay for the forum. The Forum is what I link to, not the main page. The forum is the reason I bought the books, and the forum is the reason I bothered to find the address after losing my bookmarks. From my PoV, anything is better than the forum going down.

[Fawkes]

I'm with Kelly. Rich's responses were unnecessarily rude, both to Kelly and the OP.

No. It never occurred to us to even question why a stiff breeze sends our server crashing faster than the Dow Jones until now. :smallannoyed:

There was no need to be this caustic and sarcastic. We all thought the forums would be better after the purge, but they're just as bad as ever (maybe worse). Besides, the OP is a relatively infrequent poster; he can be forgiven for not knowing the official position on the forum lag. Besides, other poster were more than happy to inform him of previous statements about the problem.

And then, when someone posts his opinion, the Giant goes off on how they're trying to push their views onto him, and it's his message board, and he can do whatever he wants with it so piss off.

I have never had a problem with the moderators on this forum, but I am appalled that the administrator would treat posters like this. If it were anyone else, the Giant's latest post would have been scrubbed for flaming.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I have to agree with Mechafox. I can understand Mr. Burlew's frustration with his fans (in his perception) trying to boss him around, but that doesn't excuse such a level of unprofessionalism.

Mr. Burlew, I know you don't want to hear it, this is your house, it's your show, etc. I understand that completely. But you have to acknowledge that, when you opened this forum to the public, even if you still own it, others with differing opinions and priorities from you are still going to use it to talk to each other and you. Respond however you like, it's not going to stop people from continuing to behave in the same way, and really caustic responses like this are unbecoming of a professional artist of your caliber. Sorry if it seems like a double standard, but if you're insisting on your status as King of the Site, I just think you should be a little more kingly.

I'm not going to tell you that I'm in favor of banner ads, because you don't care. I'm not going to offer advice or aid as a professional web administrator (who really needs a job), because you don't care. I'm not going to even use the standard argument tactic of making points in threes, because you don't care and I just remembered I have to go somewhere.

[SPoD]

Rich can be as sarcastic as he damn well pleases. Not only is it his site, but sarcasm and rudeness aren't against the rules anyway. I guess you want him to have some sort of bland public relations platitudes in situations like this, but this is the guy who invented Roy and Belkar. What he wrote doesn't even begin to qualify as sarcastic or rude in comparison.

Plus, every poster who gets offended and stops visiting the site is one less poster accessing the server. Rich is doing his part to reduce the server load with every post!

EDIT: Also, lest anyone think that the Giant's response to Admiral Kelly exists in a vacuum, I would point out that railing against the administration is a regular thing with him, as evidenced by this thread: Gripes, by Admiral Kelly. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103542) It's a far more understandable thing to be rude to someone who is consistently rude to you and your staff, IMO.

[estradling]

Given that the Forums have been down for the last 13 hours, the thread purge clearly wasn't effective enough. The Forum obviously is in dire need of better support, but between the economy going down the tubes and it being the first quarter of the year, it's understandable that the money to fix it isn't available. I get completely that Rich doesn't want to accept donations or put up ads, but something needs to happen. Whether it's banner ads on the forum, Rich selling something specifically to support the forum that he sees more profits out of than the traditional merch, or even just a constantly updated graph of the last 24 hours of use so that forum regulars can see the issues and change their habits, the status quo is obviously untenable.

I came originally for OotS, but I stay for the forum. The Forum is what I link to, not the main page. The forum is the reason I bought the books, and the forum is the reason I bothered to find the address after losing my bookmarks. From my PoV, anything is better than the forum going down.


Your'e making the same basic 'assumption' as the guy that the Giant corrected. I believe the Giant has made quite clear that the running of the forums, while nice and good, are not a high enough priority for him to accept the alternatives of donation, or ads.

While this position might be contrary to the 'convenience' of many people on the forums (and what they would like it to be) From what he has said the impact of the forums on his bottom line seems to be more of a negative one then a positive one. (Cost more in bandwidth and aggravation then it brings in from people staying around, would be how I guess that works)

[Fawkes]

Rich can be as sarcastic as he damn well pleases. Not only is it his site, but sarcasm and rudeness aren't against the rules anyway.Any poster that openly attacks, insults, belittles, or abuses another poster will have their offending post modified and an Infraction issued to them. You can be critical of another poster's viewpoint in a debate, even going as far as to explain why you believe them to be mistaken and backing your points up with rules quotes as appropriate, but the moment your criticism extends to the person who posted that viewpoint, it has crossed the line.Besides, I'm not talking about the rules. I'm talking about manners. Rich was unnecessarily rude. That's not cool.

I guess you want him to have some sort of bland public relations platitudes in situations like this, but this is the guy who invented Roy and Belkar. What he wrote doesn't even begin to qualify as sarcastic or rude in comparison.
Saying "at least he wasn't as rude as Belkar" is not a compliment. Belkar is crafted to be the rudest, foulest characters imaginable. If Thomas Harris killed and ate someone, you wouldn't say "this guy created Hannibal, this isn't nearly as bad as his character was."

[Nerd-o-rama]

Rich can be as sarcastic as he damn well pleases. Not only is it his site, but sarcasm and rudeness aren't against the rules anyway.And we can be as offended by unprofessional behavior as we damn well please.

[SPoD]

Besides, I'm not talking about the rules. I'm talking about manners. Rich was unnecessarily rude. That's not cool.

He was in the middle of telling us that what any of us think about the issue doesn't matter to him at all. So I'm willing to bet that what you think about his manners doesn't matter to him at all.

Besides, I thought it was amusing and long overdue, so even if he does care what any of us think, it will all zero out anyway.

[Fawkes]

{Scrubbed}

[Vael]

Even as an administrator of a very small site, I have felt what it is like to have my decisions questioned and railed against- it doesn't matter what you do, if there are enough people someone is going to find fault with it. It can get terribly frustrating and irritating to deal with the same dissenting opinions and arguments again and again, and it's very trying when you're only attempting to implement the values you hold highest.

On the other hand, I know how it feels to see the site failing over and over again, and finding myself losing access to some of my favorite discussions, activities and friends. I know the frustration of feeling that something could be done, and that changes could be implemented to fix it. I've experienced the feelings that come from being targeted with exasperation and frustration, and I understand what it provokes in a person.

It's difficult to see both sides of the picture, but that's my advice here- think about what the other person is going through. Don't argue over what they've done wrong and what they've done right, don't measure up flaws and mistakes- just try and realize that we're all wanting the same thing here.
There's frustration on either side, but in the end I think it all stems from the same thing: we want the site to be as good as it can be. As forumgoers, our concerns naturally stem from our access to it- we want to be able to participate in forum discussions and activities, to socialize with the people here and enjoy ourselves.
But the administration- and Mr. Burlew in particular- have to think of it in a different light, from the perspective of managing and upkeep. Of what can be afforded, and what new sources of income will mean to the forum.

We all just want to express our concern and care for the forums: that's what it is really about, isn't it? It's going to be easier and nicer for everyone if we can share and be sympathetic to the concerns of others rather than throw them at each other as attacks.

[SPoD]

And we can be as offended by unprofessional behavior as we damn well please.

Could you please point me to the place where I said that you couldn't? No? OK, then. Defending Rich is not the same thing as attacking your right to criticize him.

You have an opinion, I have an opinion, we all have opinions that contradict each other, we all can express them. Including Rich.

For some reason, everyone wants him to fit their idea of what he's supposed to care about, whether it's forum speed or politeness. But he doesn't, and that gets people upset. He doesn't answer to us, no matter how much we may want him to.

[SPoD]

{Scrubbed}

(Bold mine.) I'm just going to suggest that maybe calling a forum admin a derogatory name on a thread that you know he's been reading is not the best move you could make.

You know, unless you're trying to egg the mods into banning you so you can be a martyr.

[Rollory]

Well this turned into a fun thread!

No. It never occurred to us to even question why a stiff breeze sends our server crashing faster than the Dow Jones until now. :smallannoyed:

FYI, I don't read this part of the forums obsessively, F5ing repeatedly and tracking every single item for updates. In fact I have visited it about four times total. There were no thread titles obviously discussing the issue. So if this is the only place the issue is discussed, it is not reasonable to expect me (or people like me) to know about it. Make a newspost or a sticky or something, or accept clueless questions of this sort.

As for the rest of the discussion - what I should have said: "if the administration of the site doesn't consider people constantly reloading pages to be enough of a problem to take specific measures to *prevent* such behavior, when (as I understand it) sections of the forums explicitly ENCOURAGE exactly this behavior, I see no reason why I should voluntarily impose restrictions on my own use of the site, particularly when what I do is a comparatively tiny fraction of the load on the server".

Or, tl;dr: this is tragedy of the commons. The base incentives need to change. That, and the _why_ of it, was my point. But this is beating a dead horse.

[afroakuma]

There were no thread titles obviously discussing the issue.

How about "Is the site slow for you?" which is still on the first page. And was locked.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

{Scrubbed}

It could be worse. An admin on another forum I frequent claimed to be a guy posing as a girl when we first started the forum, then several years later "confessed" to being a girl posing as a guy, and this charade went on for several years more before it was revealed a few months ago that he really was a guy after all. We certainly don't have any shenanigans like that going on here!

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Even as an administrator of a very small site, I have felt what it is like to have my decisions questioned and railed against- it doesn't matter what you do, if there are enough people someone is going to find fault with it. It can get terribly frustrating and irritating to deal with the same dissenting opinions and arguments again and again, and it's very trying when you're only attempting to implement the values you hold highest.

On the other hand, I know how it feels to see the site failing over and over again, and finding myself losing access to some of my favorite discussions, activities and friends. I know the frustration of feeling that something could be done, and that changes could be implemented to fix it. I've experienced the feelings that come from being targeted with exasperation and frustration, and I understand what it provokes in a person.

It's difficult to see both sides of the picture, but that's my advice here- think about what the other person is going through. Don't argue over what they've done wrong and what they've done right, don't measure up flaws and mistakes- just try and realize that we're all wanting the same thing here.
There's frustration on either side, but in the end I think it all stems from the same thing: we want the site to be as good as it can be. As forumgoers, our concerns naturally stem from our access to it- we want to be able to participate in forum discussions and activities, to socialize with the people here and enjoy ourselves.
But the administration- and Mr. Burlew in particular- have to think of it in a different light, from the perspective of managing and upkeep. Of what can be afforded, and what new sources of income will mean to the forum.

We all just want to express our concern and care for the forums: that's what it is really about, isn't it? It's going to be easier and nicer for everyone if we can share and be sympathetic to the concerns of others rather than throw them at each other as attacks.

Well spoken, Vael.

[Inyssius Tor]

Wrote this seven hours ago, just before the forums went down again. Does this sound accurate to the rest of you?

Rich, I'm very sorry that Kelly's post offended you. I liked what he said, and would have agreed with it if you hadn't replied first--or posted something similar myself if he hadn't posted first. As such, I feel like I deserve a copy of the blame. I feel as culpable as he is, and would like to apologize for the offense.

I think he wasn't saying what you think he was saying, though. I thought he was only trying to give you a suggestion, to convey his point of view as concisely as possible. He ended his post by saying that, whatever course of action you take--it would be cool with him, and he wished you the best of luck. Not trying to exercise his "right to be listened to", as I read it, but trying to tell you that he didn't feel that had any such rights.

Again, I'm sorry you read it differently. As someone who feels the same way as he does, and would have posted in just the same way if he hadn't posted what he did, I feel as bad about it (if less personally offended, since I didn't actually post anything).

------

I'd like to clarify that position, though. Try to explain what I think Kelly's thoughts on the subject were.

You do have the unassailable right to shut down the forums at any time you wish, without any reason whatsoever. These forums have been a serious drain on your time and resources, not to mention hacking away at your source of income--and whenever I look in at the Comic subforum, all I see is a bunch of whiny people complaining about where you're going with the story you're telling. So I, and I think everyone else here, would understand and sympathize if you did kill the board tomorrow.

But we already feel like we have a vested interest in these boards. We've put a lot of time and energy into building a community here. This forum is yours, yes. But the community is ours. You're already our landlord, whether you like it or not. We, your tenants, know that you're trying to clean up the messes that we make with the resources that you have. We're sorry that our presence is causing such messes. We're still here not because we have a SACRED RIGHT to make a mess on your forums, but because we believe that you still don't want us to leave.

On top of being slightly inconvenienced by these forum issues, we feel bad about causing you so much trouble. Since we don't want to leave either, we would like to lessen both your major troubles (your website, the root of your profession and the source of your income and the fruit of years of your hard work, is slashdotting under the traffic) and our less major ones (the community we built and enjoy, our internet "home", is in danger).

We were only pointing out that we would be willing to help do that by, to return to the landlord metaphor, giving you maintenance money.

(Not that I'm trying to make you implement that, just trying to explain why this suggestion has been forwarded so repeatedly.)

[skywalker]

EDIT: Also, lest anyone think that the Giant's response to Admiral Kelly exists in a vacuum, I would point out that railing against the administration is a regular thing with him, as evidenced by this thread: Gripes, by Admiral Kelly. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103542) It's a far more understandable thing to be rude to someone who is consistently rude to you and your staff, IMO.

I'm going to Rules Lawyer at you some more, because you've just made it so darned easy!

We have a rule explicitly stating that every thread should exist in a vacuum. No external baggage, that's what it's called. And I personally think it is the most ignored rule on this forum, partially because it is practically unfollowable. Sure, you can follow it to the best of your ability, but not completely. Still, I personally try my best to consider a post within the framework of just that thread. Sometimes it's hard, sometimes I fail. But I will do my best to consider your opinion in another thread without bias, despite the fact that we disagree violently here.

...

Anyway, I know the story about the donations. Oh, do I know. I know they give people a sense of entitlement, blah, blah, blah. News Flash:

If you expect something back, you aren't donating.

A donation, by its very definition, is a gift without the expectation of anything in return. Too often in our society, we see "this t-shirt available for a donation of only $5!" However, this has the unfortunate side-effect of creating an expectation of, in this case, a t-shirt. In my opinion, people need to grow up and realize that a donation is just that, a gift. Unfortunately, too many people give a gift only because they expect something back as well.

I really would like to see an "us" mentality here, instead of an "us-vs.-them" mentality, which I think has been growing the past little while. Some mods seem to have lessened their visits. Paradoxically, this seems to have happened while technical troubles increase stress for the remaining staff, while forum membership has simultaneously gone up. More and more people seem to be joining and, specifically, not reading the rules. I think this has lead to some heavy-handedness and short tempers among staff, and at the same time, some of our older, wiser members have stopped coming by so often, in part due to the technical troubles, and in part because their friends among the older, unwiser members have been banned.

I think if we all took a step back, and saw ourselves all as part of the same community (on both sides, forumites and staff), I think it would work out a lot better for everybody.

Here's where I was going originally, and now I'm finally going to lay it out. We (now established as everyone involved with GITP) want to see the site continue. We want to see the site load faster and more reliably. Up until this point, donations have been flat out ignored as an option. My question is, with such a, as mechafox put it, "piss off" attitude towards those who favor donations, why not treat people who expect something once they've donated with the same attitude? At least you've got their money. In my opinion, you're morally more in the clear there than when telling someone with a legitimate opinion off because, when it comes down to it, people who expect something back from a "donation" really aren't donating at all.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: The OP's questions have been answered. Yes, we've been looking at the issue. No, there are no plans to mirror the content. (And though it wasn't asked: yes, we've been working on other things to deal with the situation.)

Thread locked.