*IMPORTANT FUTURE BOARDS INFORMATION* - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

*IMPORTANT FUTURE BOARDS INFORMATION*

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
lord_karsus
May 22, 2008 1:52:31
G0 wrote:
#2
lord_karsus
May 22, 2008 12:04:53 -Of course, that isn't how G0 is looking to do things.
#3
Brom_Blackforge
May 22, 2008 13:36:11 Is it just me, or is anyone else confused about why the boards reorganization left the old setting-specific fora under the "Previous Editions" heading, while reserving this separate space for 4E discussion of those same settings? It made some degree of sense to have a separate setting-specific 4E forum while there was still a separate 4E section of the D&D boards, but now that the 4E boards ARE the D&D boards, why have separate 4E and Previous Editions versions?

Oh. Wait.

I just opened up a separate window and checked again. I see.

Now all of the OLD setting fora have ALSO been dumped in here. That makes a bit more sense, I guess. But I don't understand why they didn't just maintain the separate fora for each setting. We didn't need two for each, but I would suggest that one for each wasn't so unreasonable.
#4
lord_karsus
May 22, 2008 13:51:10
But I don't understand why they didn't just maintain the separate fora for each setting. We didn't need two for each, but I would suggest that one for each wasn't so unreasonable.

-There was not enough forum traffic to justify them, as G0 has stated.
#5
Brom_Blackforge
May 22, 2008 14:05:51
-There was not enough forum traffic to justify them, as G0 has stated.

What time period were they looking at? The time since the 4E announcement, when people who frequented the old setting-specific boards either left entirely or split their attention between the original boards and the 4E versions? Or did they actually look back at the traffic that the old setting-specific boards got before they created the 4E versions and thereby split the traffic?

Moreover, what is there to justify? What difficulty did the separate fora create? I'm not a computer expert, so I'm not just being confrontational, I'm really looking for an answer. If there was some legitimate issue, what was it? I don't see anything in the quote that started off this thread that tells me the answer to that question.
#6
Brom_Blackforge
May 22, 2008 14:13:52 And if it's based solely on traffic, then why is there a "Character Development" forum? I'm sure this will change, but as of right now, there are a grand total of two threads in that forum. TWO! Meanwhile, this forum has nearly two hundred from within the last month.
#7
wrecan
May 22, 2008 14:19:35
What time period were they looking at?

We looked at several months before the forum change. In the Community Business forum, I started a forumwatch thread that is monitoring activity. According to G0, if a board consistently shows more than 25 active threads/day, it might get divided into multiple forums.
#8
lord_karsus
May 22, 2008 15:49:54
Moreover, what is there to justify? What difficulty did the separate fora create? I'm not a computer expert, so I'm not just being confrontational, I'm really looking for an answer. If there was some legitimate issue, what was it? I don't see anything in the quote that started off this thread that tells me the answer to that question.

-Mind you, I am not a technician, or anything of that sort.

-Websites are built using 'bandwith'. The more bandwith you have, the more room you have on your website to add stuff. To make a long story short, it was deemed that there was not enough traffic to justify using the bandwith to give every defunct setting it's own section. Instead, to save those resources, it was decided to lump them all together, for the time being. Having everything lumped into one section also allows maintainence on the website to move at a more rapid pace, and it allows WizOs to work at a more rapid pace.
#9
rhialto
May 22, 2008 15:54:28 As i understand it, having separate forums would have meant less bandwidth used up, as a person in one of teh old forums would not be forced to download data related to the other old forums. With them all merged, a visitor is forced to download data relating to all of them, increasing teh total bandwidth usage.

I believe the reason for the merger relates more to admin man-hours needed to monitor teh boards for impolite behaviour. It takes less man-hours to monitor the boards if they are merged.
#10
agathokles
May 22, 2008 16:14:42
-Mind you, I am not a technician, or anything of that sort.

-Websites are built using 'bandwith'. The more bandwith you have, the more room you have on your website to add stuff. To make a long story short, it was deemed that there was not enough traffic to justify using the bandwith to give every defunct setting it's own section.

Ahem, the above doesn't make any sense... "bandwith" is a measure of network traffic, not storage space. If your website contained a lot of stuff, but people accessed only little bits of it at any time, you would need less bandwith than if the website served the same (small) set of pages a huge number of times.

Wikipedia has a short but hopefully clear coverage of the issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_%28computing%29

G.
#11
lord_karsus
May 22, 2008 16:20:34
Ahem, the above doesn't make any sense... "bandwith" is a measure of network traffic, not storage space. If your website contained a lot of stuff, but people accessed only little bits of it at any time, you would need less bandwith than if the website served the same (small) set of pages a huge number of times.

Wikipedia has a short but hopefully clear coverage of the issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_%28computing%29

G.

-Did I not preface my statement with 'I am not a technician'? That said, replace any unapplicable words with applicable words.
#12
agathokles
May 22, 2008 16:34:28
-Did I not preface my statement with 'I am not a technician'? That said, replace any unapplicable words with applicable words.

I understand that you are not a technician, but the statement I quoted is not really salvageable: there is no apparent technical reason for reducing the number of boards -- I don't know which software WotC is using, but open source forum softwares can scale in the order of one or two thousand forums.
I'd expect storage costs to depend more on the number of posts than on the number of forums (so, since no posts were actually deleted, storage is not likely to be the issue either).

GP
#13
wrecan
May 22, 2008 16:35:49 My understanding is that the issue is the labor of monitoring the forums, not the bandwidth. Apparently (and I have no inside info, so take this with a grain of salt), slow moving forums tend to be laxly monitored. There have been problems with some of these forums (and I don't mean the Other Worlds forums specifically -- I have no idea what forums are involved) having offensive materials posted to them and lingering without moderation because they went unreported. So the decision was made to reduce the number of low-traffic forums.

That's my understanding. I could be completely wrong.
#14
elrikdarkstorm
May 22, 2008 17:42:42 This is really FN stupid,why cant they just keep things simple,just like with the games they have to just keep making everything more complicated,do they forget that people come here because the may want to have fun on the boards have fun playing one of the rpg with out having to relearn 25 thousand new sets of rules and classes etc,i mean the difference between 2nd edition and the 3rd is huge so what is the difference gunna be for the 4th edition gunna be,this is not real life and it is never gunna be even close to the combat of real life,so WOTC just keep things simple so that we all can have fun and not waste valuable game time with study time,if you catch my drift.And one more thing i thought that the baords were fine the way they were very east to navigate,but now it is pain in the arse,i hope that you corporate butttheads are happy.remember that gary gygax had a dream that was D&D so just try and stick to it the best that you can and dont disrepect his memory
#15
hayabusa
May 23, 2008 18:47:23 It is extremely disorienting, especially since the Gleemax boards don't have subject tabs like at ENWorld. That would make it extremely easier.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 lord_karsus May 22, 2008 1:52:31	G0 wrote:
#2 lord_karsus May 22, 2008 12:04:53	-Of course, that isn't how G0 is looking to do things.
#3 Brom_Blackforge May 22, 2008 13:36:11	Is it just me, or is anyone else confused about why the boards reorganization left the old setting-specific fora under the "Previous Editions" heading, while reserving this separate space for 4E discussion of those same settings? It made some degree of sense to have a separate setting-specific 4E forum while there was still a separate 4E section of the D&D boards, but now that the 4E boards ARE the D&D boards, why have separate 4E and Previous Editions versions? Oh. Wait. I just opened up a separate window and checked again. I see. Now all of the OLD setting fora have ALSO been dumped in here. That makes a bit more sense, I guess. But I don't understand why they didn't just maintain the separate fora for each setting. We didn't need two for each, but I would suggest that one for each wasn't so unreasonable.
#4 lord_karsus May 22, 2008 13:51:10	But I don't understand why they didn't just maintain the separate fora for each setting. We didn't need two for each, but I would suggest that one for each wasn't so unreasonable. -There was not enough forum traffic to justify them, as G0 has stated.
#5 Brom_Blackforge May 22, 2008 14:05:51	-There was not enough forum traffic to justify them, as G0 has stated. What time period were they looking at? The time since the 4E announcement, when people who frequented the old setting-specific boards either left entirely or split their attention between the original boards and the 4E versions? Or did they actually look back at the traffic that the old setting-specific boards got before they created the 4E versions and thereby split the traffic? Moreover, what is there to justify? What difficulty did the separate fora create? I'm not a computer expert, so I'm not just being confrontational, I'm really looking for an answer. If there was some legitimate issue, what was it? I don't see anything in the quote that started off this thread that tells me the answer to that question.
#6 Brom_Blackforge May 22, 2008 14:13:52	And if it's based solely on traffic, then why is there a "Character Development" forum? I'm sure this will change, but as of right now, there are a grand total of two threads in that forum. TWO! Meanwhile, this forum has nearly two hundred from within the last month.
#7 wrecan May 22, 2008 14:19:35	What time period were they looking at? We looked at several months before the forum change. In the Community Business forum, I started a forumwatch thread that is monitoring activity. According to G0, if a board consistently shows more than 25 active threads/day, it might get divided into multiple forums.
#8 lord_karsus May 22, 2008 15:49:54	Moreover, what is there to justify? What difficulty did the separate fora create? I'm not a computer expert, so I'm not just being confrontational, I'm really looking for an answer. If there was some legitimate issue, what was it? I don't see anything in the quote that started off this thread that tells me the answer to that question. -Mind you, I am not a technician, or anything of that sort. -Websites are built using 'bandwith'. The more bandwith you have, the more room you have on your website to add stuff. To make a long story short, it was deemed that there was not enough traffic to justify using the bandwith to give every defunct setting it's own section. Instead, to save those resources, it was decided to lump them all together, for the time being. Having everything lumped into one section also allows maintainence on the website to move at a more rapid pace, and it allows WizOs to work at a more rapid pace.
#9 rhialto May 22, 2008 15:54:28	As i understand it, having separate forums would have meant less bandwidth used up, as a person in one of teh old forums would not be forced to download data related to the other old forums. With them all merged, a visitor is forced to download data relating to all of them, increasing teh total bandwidth usage. I believe the reason for the merger relates more to admin man-hours needed to monitor teh boards for impolite behaviour. It takes less man-hours to monitor the boards if they are merged.
#10 agathokles May 22, 2008 16:14:42	-Mind you, I am not a technician, or anything of that sort. -Websites are built using 'bandwith'. The more bandwith you have, the more room you have on your website to add stuff. To make a long story short, it was deemed that there was not enough traffic to justify using the bandwith to give every defunct setting it's own section. Ahem, the above doesn't make any sense... "bandwith" is a measure of network traffic, not storage space. If your website contained a lot of stuff, but people accessed only little bits of it at any time, you would need less bandwith than if the website served the same (small) set of pages a huge number of times. Wikipedia has a short but hopefully clear coverage of the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_%28computing%29 G.
#11 lord_karsus May 22, 2008 16:20:34	Ahem, the above doesn't make any sense... "bandwith" is a measure of network traffic, not storage space. If your website contained a lot of stuff, but people accessed only little bits of it at any time, you would need less bandwith than if the website served the same (small) set of pages a huge number of times. Wikipedia has a short but hopefully clear coverage of the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_%28computing%29 G. -Did I not preface my statement with 'I am not a technician'? That said, replace any unapplicable words with applicable words.
#12 agathokles May 22, 2008 16:34:28	-Did I not preface my statement with 'I am not a technician'? That said, replace any unapplicable words with applicable words. I understand that you are not a technician, but the statement I quoted is not really salvageable: there is no apparent technical reason for reducing the number of boards -- I don't know which software WotC is using, but open source forum softwares can scale in the order of one or two thousand forums. I'd expect storage costs to depend more on the number of posts than on the number of forums (so, since no posts were actually deleted, storage is not likely to be the issue either). GP
#13 wrecan May 22, 2008 16:35:49	My understanding is that the issue is the labor of monitoring the forums, not the bandwidth. Apparently (and I have no inside info, so take this with a grain of salt), slow moving forums tend to be laxly monitored. There have been problems with some of these forums (and I don't mean the Other Worlds forums specifically -- I have no idea what forums are involved) having offensive materials posted to them and lingering without moderation because they went unreported. So the decision was made to reduce the number of low-traffic forums. That's my understanding. I could be completely wrong.
#14 elrikdarkstorm May 22, 2008 17:42:42	This is really FN stupid,why cant they just keep things simple,just like with the games they have to just keep making everything more complicated,do they forget that people come here because the may want to have fun on the boards have fun playing one of the rpg with out having to relearn 25 thousand new sets of rules and classes etc,i mean the difference between 2nd edition and the 3rd is huge so what is the difference gunna be for the 4th edition gunna be,this is not real life and it is never gunna be even close to the combat of real life,so WOTC just keep things simple so that we all can have fun and not waste valuable game time with study time,if you catch my drift.And one more thing i thought that the baords were fine the way they were very east to navigate,but now it is pain in the arse,i hope that you corporate butttheads are happy.remember that gary gygax had a dream that was D&D so just try and stick to it the best that you can and dont disrepect his memory
#15 hayabusa May 23, 2008 18:47:23	It is extremely disorienting, especially since the Gleemax boards don't have subject tabs like at ENWorld. That would make it extremely easier.