Forum Request: Increase size of PM mailbox?

[Young Ned]

Is there any way we could get the size of our private message mailboxes increased from 100? I'm a packrat and hate to delete PMs, but I currently have 96 sitting in my mailbox (counting both sent and received), so I'll be forced to bite the bullet and start purging in the near future if we can't get an increase...

[shadowblack]

Maximum number of PMs for users and mods should now be 1000. That should be more than enough for anyone.

[Young Ned]

Thank you, shadowblack! That should definitely hold me for a while. :cool:

[thingirl]

1k might hold YN, but y'all know how much I like to talk. :rolleyes:

And I don't like deleting PMs either. :) So maybe, if it's possible, one of our super awesome admins could increase the size (again) to something bigger. Like 10k? Or 5k, if 10k is too big. :)

[scout1idf]

1k might hold YN, but y'all know how much I like to talk. :rolleyes:

And I don't like deleting PMs either. :) So maybe, if it's possible, one of our super awesome admins could increase the size (again) to something bigger. Like 10k? Or 5k, if 10k is too big. :)

If you want to keep them and clear up your folder, just down load them as a text document or one of the other options on the list.

http://www.srythforum.com/picture.php?albumid=11&pictureid=296

Just select the option from the drop down list or the links below it.

Just a thought if you want to 'clean house'....

[thingirl]

Thanks Scout! I've actually done that already. Repped for pointing out that feature. :)

However, it doesn't solve my problem completely. I know I'm probably just being an annoying little twit, I kind of want to keep all me PMs in my inbox. :)

And I know that it's probably not actually doable, but I figured it's worth asking.:)

[Oldschool]

Now we know what happened.......

TG's overstuffed in box crashed the forum, lol. ;)

[Tetracapillactomist]

Is it possible to do this increase in capacity? Rather (since I was already informed that it is technically feasible), is there any willingness to do so?

As it stands, I've gradually and reluctantly purged my "Sent items" box, leaving only slightly over two dozen of my replies, but my mailbox has a constant warning displayed, now showing "Your PM box is 96% full."

I value my fellow forum users private messages, and I'd like to keep them - here, if possible, not in a jumbled single file, listing all senders mixed together (as an option to pre-sort messages based on user names prior to download does not exist).

Am hoping for a positive official answer to this question, if at all possible, from the part of the administrators.

I hope also, that this isn't deemed an unreasonable request.

Thank you.

[Meduwyn]

:D My 'two cents'...

I agree with TC. It would be vastly preferable to be able to keep an archive of received PMs, remaining in the Inbox, where they are easy to sort through. I am grateful that the previous 100 limit was lifted to 1000!

However, these modern days, virtual space gets larger (while hardware gets smaller and flatter) at an increasing rate. Take Gmail as an example. Perhaps we are all a little spoiled :rolleyes: but only because we are so enthusiastic about the forum that we love. :) It would be a shame to, in any way, curb that enthusiasm. However, I understand that there may be a space issue.

How about a PM box limit that starts at 1000 but then increases regularly as the number of posts that a member writes increases? So, members like OS and TG and TC would have the largest PM box, while brand-new members would have to be content with 'just' 1000. Might that be workable? Seems like it would be an incentive to post, as well.

[Tetracapillactomist]

Thank you Meduwyn! :) But me in OS' and TG's league? No chance of that happening. :) I guess I better prepare for a reduction now, based on proportional allowances! :) (JK)

Oh, well... I'm at 98%, so I guess I'll try saving them individually, starting with the earliest, then start to delete.

[shadowblack]

I can't speak for other admins, but as far as I am concerned: No. 1000 messages is more than enough (I probably have less PMs in all the forums I visit). There's a reason for the limit, and it's not because the admins are mean and want you to "murder" :rolleyes: messages. This is a forum for discussions (mostly) about Sryth, not a PM storage.

P.S.: Just curious, but why do you even need that many PMs? Just what have you been doing via PMs?:confused:

[Tetracapillactomist]

(Yeah, "murder," I agree. :rolleyes: Overly dramatic? :D I didn't think I left it up long enough to be answered - in any case, I cut that crap out - apologies - so there is no offensive drama left in the message, I hope.)

You're right, this isn't a PM service.

Thank you for answering.


P.S.: Just curious, but why do you even need that many PMs?

Need them? I get them... :confused: Or did you mean the higher limit? Well, if I get them, I like to keep them.


P.S.: Just what have you been doing via PMs?:confused:

Answer: messaging. :confused: Or setting up the New World Order, whichever...

Again: thank you for the prompt reply, Shadowblack.

[Doolipalally]

This is a forum for discussions (mostly) about Sryth, not a PM storage.



Hmm. I thought this was a place where the Sryth community could get together. Surely that includes PM-ing as well as posting? There are discussions which are better in private, and some of those discussions people might want to keep. If it's appropriate to have a conversation by PM rather than in public, surely that should be encouraged?

Personally I'm fine with the amount of PM storage I have. Just thought I'd put an alternative point of view!

[shadowblack]

Hmm. I thought this was a place where the Sryth community could get together. Surely that includes PM-ing as well as posting? There are discussions which are better in private, and some of those discussions people might want to keep. If it's appropriate to have a conversation by PM rather than in public, surely that should be encouraged?

Personally I'm fine with the amount of PM storage I have. Just thought I'd put an alternative point of view!
That is the main reason the number of PMs we can have was increased from 100 to 1000 (the other was that people requested it). But everything has its limits and 1K seems like a reasonable limit for PMs - if someone really needs more than that for private discussions, then he probably should use some other way to talk with the other people instead of PMs, and if he absolutely needs to keep some messages, then he should download them as a file to make sure they won't be lost if something happens with the forum.

[Tetracapillactomist]

[...] he probably should use some other way to talk with the other people instead of PMs, and if he absolutely needs to keep some messages, then he should download them as a file [...]

For the record, Shadowblack, I already accepted the forum god's word, and I considered the matter closed.

So you can lay off the "he."

However, thank you for the indirect advice.

[shadowblack]

For the record, Shadowblack, I already accepted the forum god's word, and I considered the matter closed.

So you can lay off the "he."

However, thank you for the indirect advice.
That wasn't aimed at you, or anyone else in particular. In fact, originally I had used the word "you" instead of "he", but then decided that it might be seen as if I'm referring to Doolipalally, so I edited my message to make it clear it's not aimed at anyone. Maybe I should have written a disclaimer specifically saying I'm not referring to anyone in particular.

[Tetracapillactomist]

Again, for me, the matter was closed.

But I am the only male requesting the increase since Young Ned.

So you're right, I jumped to the conclusion that "he" meant the only male contributor with a recent request. I'm sorry? Short answer: No.

We're done, yes?

[shadowblack]

Sure, we're done. But for the record:
1) No, I don't check the gender of the people who have posted in a topic, so if you had not mentioned it I wouldn't have known you're the only male
2) Yes, I would mention your name if a part of my message was aimed at you
In fact, I think I'll add the above 2 points to my sig.

[Tetracapillactomist]

:) Cute.

Thank you once more, I'm in your debt.

[thingirl]

Oh well. I kind of figured that the response would be no.

Although, for the record....

P.S.: Just curious, but why do you even need that many PMs? Just what have you been doing via PMs?:confused:

Myself, I like to talk with a bunch of different people. And I talk to some more than others. And over 1 and a half years without deleting anything other than my sent box, that starts to add up to close to 1k.....

[Scarbrow]

hi, sorry to be so late for the discussion.

first and foremost, there is no technical reason than I'm aware of to limit thesize of PM mailbox. The 100 limit was the forum default, and 1000 seemed like a good default. However, there are physical storage limits, so some limit must be applied. It must also be the same for all users, by forum design. The problem is we really can´t see how much storage do we have left. The physical setup of the server is a matter only the GM and our host provider know about. we can try to contact the GM about this, but you know how things are around here: that will take time.

Second, there is no word of god here, saved maybe the GM himself. Shadowblack, as well as myself, is only a regular player withsome extra technical power, granted by the community to help with the maintenance. he also earned that power. For a long time, he was the main (and sometimes the only) voice in the help section, always the first one to arrive withhelpful advice. i admit he may look a little dry and commanding sometimes, but he has earned the right to be so, if only because he's one of the forum greybeards. However, the signature thing seems a little bit silly. Nobody will understand unless they read this thread. So please don't squabble; you're both valuable forum contributors, each on his own style.

Third, beside the technical reasons, this is a change for all to discuss. I'm personally happy with the current inbox, but if the server can hold them, I see no reson to avoid the change. I'd like more viewpoints, please. Oldschool?

[Tetracapillactomist]

I am sorry for my god-comment then, Scarbrow. I really did my best to hold back - maybe I wasn't completely successful at that. At least your post prevented me from posting what my next post was going to be.

There may not be forum gods, but you are once more a minister of the reason and the soul. :)

Thank you. Really thank you.

(As for me, I'll muddle through my messages, as time and nerve allow, while awaiting a hopefully favourable decision. I'm down to 95% from 99% :))

[Oldschool]

Actually I started to weigh in initially (on the numbers of PMs that could/can be held) but wasn't sure what parameters PM storage had and if it even could be raised from it's current level. I checked VBullentin's Online Manual via the mod panel's "useful links" and learned all kind of useful stuff including what "floodcheck" means. That being the minimum time between messages. But I couldn't find a max number for PM storage although it seems like there may be none.....? So I held off.

So the question seems to be raising the limit and kudos Scarbrow for taking it to open forum. Actually at first I thought why worry about a limit at all. But then Shadowblack's and Scarbrow's posts reminded me that at some point storage may be an issue. However from Scarbrow's post it doesn't seem like we're near to "breaching" anything yet.

First I hold very few PMs, and a little less now since we have the Personal Pages/Forum Archives (http://www.srythforum.com/showthread.php?t=1318) as some of them were PMs to myself with links to other posts that are now on my page. However other people like holding onto theirs, for whatever reason(s), as is evident by the discussion.

And before I forget Shadowblack makes a good point about downloading PMs in the case of a forum mishap.

And while 1k or 1000 pms of storage seems superfluous (gotta use that one when you get a chance, c'mon :)) to me, that's me and I'm on the other end of the spectrum as I don't hold many at all. It's not that I don't value the PM's or the banter that's just me being me. Despite the volume of stuff I link on here and elsewhere I don't hold many bookmarks either and continuously clear mine out. Sometimes I wished I hadn't like when I have a memory lapse but c'est la vie.

Anyhoo..... While I'm also happy with the current limit I agree with Scarbrow unless there's a storage issue I see no reason not to raise it. I'm guessing since we have a small number of what I consider "really" active members and an even smaller portion of them that hold PMs to the 'nth degree the total numbers of stored PMs aren't in danger of overfilling the forum's coffers.

But that's just my opinion and everyone knows what they say about opinions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeglesB0qDk&feature=player_detailpage#t=15s).

Betcha was expecting something else. ;) And a PROFANITY & LANGUAGE WARNING needs to be issued for the remainder of the clip prior to my queue point. Now that I've assured more folks watch the whole clip...... ;) Seriously the warning's legit.

Just trying to maintain some levity although that may also be subjective as well. :rolleyes:;)

[Tetracapillactomist]

I was thinking of having caused enough trouble apparently, to warrant quitting for the sake of the entire forum - but I can't (for the sake of a few).

I can only be grateful for the consideration.

This forum is a safe place, a safe environment where we can engage each other, enjoy each other's company, debate each other's views, and maybe even help each other. While remaining safe, and anonymous (as that is sometimes warranted). And while also remaining in contact with the game that we'd like to support, come what may, lulls and peak activity.

Some of that exchange will simply not take place in open forum, like it or not. It will not, even if it could - and sometimes it can not. People are social, but they are also private. And there are times when things are so personal, so private, so guarded, so painful, that privacy becomes paramount.

You can then tell people to go elsewhere with their troubles and concerns, their exchange of ideas and their help - or you can be a truly welcoming community of players, and accommodate them...

I mean it this time without the least bit of reservation or constraint: thank you from the bottom of my heart - in my own name too, but not primarily.

[Scarbrow]

Well, I'm at home again, with a full sized keyboard and even better, the ability to multi-tab. Ready to rumble!

Statistics time: I've been checking around (don't worry, admins can see how many PMs you have, but we can't see their contents, that's the private part) and most users really don't need an improved PM mailbox. I won't give names, but the heaviest PM users (the ones who have exceeded the original 100 PM limit) have on their mailboxes: 998, 956, 800, 404, 239, 234, 217, 207, 191, 182, 102, 100 PMs each. I'm the "239", by the way. I try to follow Oldschool's recommendation, but I have little time to do the cleanup. The total amount of PMs stored on the forum right now is 6031, of which the previously mentioned heavy users have 4812, in line with many other "active members" statistics previously researched.

There is another related question. Right now we have no character limit for PMs. I think that is potentially dangerous, and should be controlled, if only to avoid abuse by potential malicious users. So I'm going to set it at 5000 characters per PM, for starters. This is just a cautionary measure, and can also be discussed.

Also, I've learned I was mistaken, for the amount of PMs a user is allowed to have is not a global setting but rather an usergroup setting.

With all this in mind I think we can make an informed decission. 1000 PMs per user, with max 5k characters per PM gives us a maximum of 5 MB of server space per user. I think this a rather reasonable setting. Even generous. Because of this, I won't support increasing the general limit.

However, before you grind your teeth, I have an idea, which is to be discussed before being implemented: Creating an extra usergroup that could be awarded to "reliable" users (almost everybody here who is active). This usergroup would allow the usual user rights, plus an improved PM count (say, 2000 for starters), and the right to "send PMs to users who have reached their quota" (although that feature would be closely watched). That way we could even reduce the limit for general users, to 200 maybe, minimizing the probability a malicious user could harm the forum, while allowing the few active members to keep growing. Although I fully recommend Shadowblack's suggestion to keep archives and your inbox relatively clean.

On a loosely related note, a certain user contacted the staff recently to ask for permission to set up multiple accounts. The consensus was that this is a completely acceptable practice (I have a secondary account, and Oldschool too, that I know about), provided it's not used to try to cheat the system (believe me, we can control that, although it's very unlikely we'll need to, with the civil people around here). That has just given me another idea: if you feel your PM inbox is too small, you could also set up a separate "PM account", just for private chats, or for chats of a certain nature you'd like to keep apart from your main ones.

Please comment on my suggestions.

[scout1idf]

I was looking at my PM's and thought of an idea. (I'm 182 now 183 on the list)
Currently, my PM's are separated into the following groups...

Today
Last Week
3 Weeks Ago
Last Month
Older

My Idea was to download anything in the older group and then delete them from the messages.

Doing that would free up space and your most current PM's would still be close at hand.

Just a thought to make it easier.....

[Oldschool]

First re: the current limit. Scarbrow you are definitely one of the "meat and potatoes" folks on here when it comes to being able to fathom technical issues so I'll stand behind beside you on the general limit.

And if you're up to taking on the task of setting up the usergroup which I'm guessing you are since you mentioned it, that sounds like a good idea and is a very considerate compromise since it'll obviously entail some work/time on your part.

Kudos to you.

[Tetracapillactomist]

Oh, that 5,000-character limit just ate up some fifteen minutes cutting an ongoing multi-quote down to the last part added, then had to proceed editing that too. I'd say 20,000, judging by the small amount of text that was left in the end, so that the sender can leave at least one full previous quote. It will rarely be filled to capacity, but when there is a serious discussion, it just can't be followed in 5.000 characters, because, unlike in open forum, you cannot view two (split) messages in one tab. Plus, this will just increase the number of messages required in such cases, negating the benefit gained by the higher count.

But I thought Oldschool halfway established that there are no hard limits in place? 5 MB per user is ~500 MB (~ 1/2 GB) per 100 users (mostly unused space) - at a time of multi-terabyte (1 TB = ~1,000 GB) consumer driver and multi-petabyte servers.

This is a forum that houses only 50,000 posts. Let's assign 10 MB per 1,000 posts. That's a total of ~500 MB, or another ~1/2 GB storage space.

So, posts and user PMs total = ~ 1 GB space (if filled)?

For the entire Sryth Forum. 1 GB.

I checked, and Meduwyn's numbers are right, gmail's free storage capacity per user is now over 7.5 GB and growing. Compared to 5 MB proposed here.
I'm by no means saying give us 7.5 GB, but from 5 MB to ~7,500 MB there are more than a few intermediate steps (so a gmail free account is a 1,500 multiple of the proposed average PM space here, purely as comparison).

In fact the amount in excess of the 7,500 MB available on gmail is at this moment more than eleven times the limit of 5 MB proposed, or 56 MB - and hours away from being 57 MB (the counter is visible on the gmail page).

The troubles we've had are related to connectivity issues and more recently, a domain-related issue - not storage capacity exceedance, as was suggested jokingly. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think we're pushing limits anywhere, I think our numbers would have counted as low and safe levels for servers in the 1990s. Even if you add another 1 GB for storing images, etc.

I'd ask about the higher limits and the dual accounts, but first I'd like to put this portion up for discussion, because mine are the roughest of estimates, as I have no way of checking anything, obviously - at least, not here.

Also and again, keep in mind that Oldschool found no evidence, not even a guideline for imposed capacity limits and restrictions.

Also: the entire downloadable file of roughly 1,000 jumbled messages weighs in at just over 1 MB (~1.12 MB to ~1.2 MB) - any file format/type.

[Oldschool]

Well let me add TC to the "meat and potatoes" technical crew it seems.

Lemme get my shoes back on, clear the smoke from my ears and get outta the curled up in the corner fetal position all that data created. :cool: ;)

I think I grasped that just enough to really confuse myself more and the discussion if I try to expound on it so I won't. At least in those terms.

First my jibe at TG crashing the forum with her PM inbox was indeed a joke. Again my technical limitations need to be kept in mind but I do indeed think it was a domain related issue only. However that's gleaned from the GM's announcements and posts as there's been no staff only discussion or even dissemination of info that I know of.

Secondly let me clarify my earlier statement regarding max number of PMs. That may or may not be correct as I found nothing regarding setting a limit and that's what I was basing that on. Actually I was viewing "something" (still haven't fully recovered, lol) that listed fields that could be set like the character limit Scarbrow mentioned, floodcheck parameters, etc...

I didn't see anything about a PM limit/storage setting at all much less a range of numbers - default, maximum or otherwise. However we know such a option/field exists as it is currently set to 1K. It could be that there is no top end limit but there has to be a reason for the field to exist and limits to be able to be implemented. Aside from reaching a storage capacity I can't think of any but I'm not too savvy on such matters. Sorry for any confusion my statement may have caused.

Anyhoo......... and this may fall on Scarbrow or someone else that knows the answer for sure as I'm not sure about any of this.

VBullentin is not free and I don't know where our forum is situated or hosted aside from the UK which I get from my Flagfox extension. I know there are free forum sites that may even host? other forums like ours (a VBulletin one). However at some point free hosting sites must have limits to bandwith and storage which is the limit of my technical scope. Wouldn't forum characters in the technical sense whether they be in a PM message, signature, open forum post all contribute to that storage.

And eventually, given time, that limit will be reached. I don't have a clue as to specific parameters for us or even what would be a "standard" for free sites, etc....

Scarbrow since I'm still shaking and smoke's still clearing outta my ears I think I'll cower behind you now. :rolleyes:;)

Edit: Just trying to maintain levity and I'm not suggesting it's getting steered away from being civil 'cause it ain't.

And keep in mind my "technical difficulties" but TC seems to make a compelling argument. Hoever, Scarbrow's "work around" and alternate account suggestion seems to be viable alternatives to me and his initial limit was just that initial. However I'm already in over my head and probably oughta stow it - for now.

[Oldschool]

This is not me being catty, a smart ass, etc....

and is not aimed at TC because he "gets it", I'd ask about the higher limits and the dual accounts, but first I'd like to put this portion up for discussion

but others will read this thread and if they're like me they may sometimes get caught up in the moment so let me remind folks that this is still open to discussion.

Scarbrow's own words...


However, before you grind your teeth, I have an idea, which is to be discussed before being implemented: Creating an extra usergroup that could be awarded to "reliable" users (almost everybody here who is active). This usergroup would allow the usual user rights, plus an improved PM count (say, 2000 for starters)

There is another related question. Right now we have no character limit for PMs. I think that is potentially dangerous, and should be controlled, if only to avoid abuse by potential malicious users. So I'm going to set it at 5000 characters per PM, for starters. This is just a cautionary measure, and can also be discussed.


Maybe character count can also be set different for usergroups as PM count can?

Lull in the forum....? Not anymore.

OK... now that was me being a smart ass - no offense(s) intended though. ;)

Civil discourse is a good thing.

[Tetracapillactomist]

:) Oh, I'm not arguing, Oldschool. And my numbers regarding this forum are "interpretive," based on the ones that we have (5 MB/1,000 PMs/5,000 characters/<100 regular contributors/~6% of storage space allotted for PM actually utilised/etc.) [That last one means that in fact only ~20 to 60 or so MB of the total estimated space of ~500 MB is used up by PMs]

My numbers could be called "conjured" (Conjuration level 69 or so...) - and as we know how useful conjuration is at the moment (at least until Scarbrow's suggestions for improving that power are implemented)... Need I say more?

Put out the fire and... stay put, Oldschool, it's just the familiar "hocus-pocus," with numbers instead of words. :)

Just on the subject of reaching storage limits: unless I'm mistaken, one of the cheapest major components in today's computing machines are the conventional storage units and devices (SSD is a new chapter, still being written, with other technologies to follow). Prices have not fallen: they have plummeted. Servers are essentially, entirely, storage devices. At this point, the power required to run, cool/ventilate them for a number of hours or days costs more than the server units themselves. And all you need to expand it is add another drive and its redundant duplicate, triplicate... another server.

So, of all the possible limitations and bottlenecks, storage space is the least of our problems - communications bandwidth is a real issue, but that too, in many cases, mainly because stakeholder companies are constantly doing their utmost to artificially limit it, in order to keep bandwidth cost at a level that maximises their profits.

Whoa... that's enough of that. Now it's my ears that are venting smoke. :)

[Doolipalally]

Also, I've learned I was mistaken, for the amount of PMs a user is allowed to have is not a global setting but rather an usergroup setting.

With all this in mind I think we can make an informed decission. 1000 PMs per user, with max 5k characters per PM gives us a maximum of 5 MB of server space per user. I think this a rather reasonable setting. Even generous. Because of this, I won't support increasing the general limit.

However, before you grind your teeth, I have an idea, which is to be discussed before being implemented: Creating an extra usergroup that could be awarded to "reliable" users (almost everybody here who is active). This usergroup would allow the usual user rights, plus an improved PM count (say, 2000 for starters), and the right to "send PMs to users who have reached their quota" (although that feature would be closely watched). That way we could even reduce the limit for general users, to 200 maybe, minimizing the probability a malicious user could harm the forum, while allowing the few active members to keep growing. Although I fully recommend Shadowblack's suggestion to keep archives and your inbox relatively clean.


Logging off and sleeping now, but just wanted to say: could PM storage be increased with post count? Once someone's hit a certain number of posts, they could count as 'reliable' and their PM storage increased accordingly.

I did try thinking about storage space, but my brain hurts...

[shadowblack]

I think I'll pass on making any comments or suggestions. Scarbrow is more knowledgeable about the technical aspects of the forum, so if he thinks that increasing any limits - such as max number of PMs, max characters per forum post, or whatever other limits people may want changed (now or in the future) - is fine, then I have no objections. Besides, the settings can always be changed back, right?

*goes back to working on his Wesnoth campaign*

P.S.: I'm the one that had 191 PMs - thanks for the reminder. :)

[texlaw1992]

I find it hard to believe I had the seventh-highest number of stored PMs (217), and didn't even realize the number until Scarbrow noted it. The fault lies with one particular forum member, and she knows who she is, lol (no, it's not TG, although she did contribute).

I'm nowhere close to having 1,000 PMs, so whatever limits Scarbrow sees fit to impose on PM length is fine with me (however, my more prolific regular PM-correspondent may find the limits too confining, lol). I note those with a larger number of PMs, except perhaps Tetra (which I'm now going to use as the equivalent of Tex), have been around for quite a while, which explains the greater numbers. A couple of people may have to delete PMs, but the vast majority should not be affected.

[Lightwielder]

Statistics time: I've been checking around (don't worry, admins can see how many PMs you have, but we can't see their contents, that's the private part) and most users really don't need an improved PM mailbox. I won't give names, but the heaviest PM users (the ones who have exceeded the original 100 PM limit) have on their mailboxes: 998, 956, 800, 404, 239, 234, 217, 207, 191, 182, 102, 100 PMs each. I'm the "239", by the way. I try to follow Oldschool's recommendation, but I have little time to do the cleanup. The total amount of PMs stored on the forum right now is 6031, of which the previously mentioned heavy users have 4812, in line with many other "active members" statistics previously researched.

Okay, first, let's clear something up. As surprising as this may be, as many of you were possibly thinking it was a certain someone else, that's actually me at the top with 998 stored messages.

Scarbrow messaged me(haha, irony;)[999 now. Sorry, couldn't resist. Anyways...]) and pointed the revived PM discussion out to me, as I might have words to say about this, too.

I have no problem with the 1,000 PM Limit. The reason I have so many is that I never expected to ever reach that much. I was elated when it was increased 100 < 1,000 , but I'm not overly talkative(or so I thought) and never thought that I'd ever get there.

There is a lot of stuff I want to keep, but a lot of it is simply random chat and I haven't gotten around to filtering and clearing it. However, I have purged my Sent Items box already and it's my Inbox that holds that many. Even after I clear it, there's no telling how long that will last.

Don't get me wrong, though, I would support any PM increase, as it would be very useful, but I don't have any problems with our current system, especially if it would be difficult or costly to implement them. You all saw the numbers, there are only 3 Members that are even close to the limit. Time continues to pass and more members may find difficulty, but at the moment, there are no serious Forum-wide difficulties. I do support the user group idea, though, if it's effective.

[Scarbrow]

thank you all for your ideas. I now have to go to work and don't have time to reply. On ~12 hours I expect to have such time. Until then (will probably delete this post when I update)

[thingirl]

I'm the 800 one (now 820 :):):)). And it's only that low because I hit "delete" instead of "move to folder" when I was sorting my inbox. Otherwise I'd be at 980 or 990. :)

And let me just say... All those numbers are making my head spin. What I seem to be reading is that it's a space issue, except that it isn't a space issue because only a tiny bit of the space is actually being used, and that the space allowed isn't even all that much compared to some other things? Am I understanding that right? :confused:

The thing I did follow, however, is that there's a possibility of setting a higher limit for certain groups. a group for active members. And "active members" is open to debate. I approve of that measure. And I'd say that a reasonable benchmark for the active members/larger PM group would be 100 posts. I looked at the members list, and there's currently only about 50 members who have 100 posts or more. And most people below 100 posts and above 15 posts haven't logged in for a while. There are a few who are new and just don't have a lot of posts yet, but for the most part, it's only the 100 posts and above crowd who's actually sticking around here.

But another thing I'm not getting.... Did I shoot myself in the foot by asking this? Because when I started out, I had either no PM character limit or a very high one and a limit of 1k on stored PMs. And now I still have the 1k storage limit, but a 5k character limit for PM text??? :confused::confused::confused: So now I have less space individually, which means I have to send more PMs and reach the limit faster??? Yeah, I have less space. I should have kept my mouth shut...

[Tetracapillactomist]

:D And "no good deed goes unpunished." And people seem to generally loooove that one 'cause it gives them an additional excuse to do rotten things - or do nothing, so they won't get "punished." :D

This is just effing hilarious! :D Brilli-effing-ant, :D

It's the bloody tightrope act where they got rid of the rope - BUT THEY REINFORCED THE SAFETY NET!!! BRILLIANT! ROTFDOLMAO!!!

I love the subtle shafting irony of it, that comes with a fig between the knuckles and a challengingly raised eyebrow that says: "Yeah?! What of it?! What are you gonna do 'bout it, mate?!"

What? I'm not allowed to laugh at this? It's funny! XD

It's effing imp-worthy! :D

Ah been had! I concede! Quibbling over number of letters now?! "Oops, bloody heaves! I can't afford that smiley-face!" "Bug it! Bette' go fer punctuation-free modern verse aesthetic 'cause the crumb-counter's gone berserk, innit?!" "Ach, fer the sake of all suffering saints! i gotta pick up a copy a Learn y'self texting fr t l'brary b/f it closes!..."

Oh, alright! Scowl and frown if ye must!... Be like that.


R O O O O O A A A R !

(Pffft! Ya calls them letters big? Them's not even biggish... Them's as puny as a pimple on a flea's arse...)

(I'm channelling Mallarmé. :rolleyes: Or Apollinaire... What do I know...)

Alright, happy hour's o'er... Stop staring at the funny-like madman b'fore I get cross... gotta save me bowel-vowels and me energy...

How's that for sanity? ;)

Must've inhaled some insipid shadowy fog off the moors, and I'm possessed - off to the excalibur then... I mean excruciator... ex... whoever's gets the Devon outta ye!

(Them's funny words, frowny ones! You don' ave ta gets them, just laugh at 'em, take my word for it.
And don't go calling for meat wagons and snug-jackets, I'm fine. Yes, I'm sure...)

[demojan777]

It was the naked thing, my fault completely. I had given up half-measures but The Great Magnet can be overwhelming in its duplicity. I shall seek a medium ground.

(just kidding, of course)

Anywho, I think the 1,000 PM limit is fine, considering the data involved. A character limit on PMs of 5,000 is a bit constraining IMHO, only because I know how iffy character count is with forum posts and other things. No limit may definitely be abused by the malicious, but I think sometimes the more loquacious members would like to have room to stretch their mental muscles from time to time; perhaps a 7,500 or 10,000 character limit would be better, as those wouldn't be the majority of PMs, only a few, and still be able to prevent major abuse.

That's all from me on this for now, just thought I would put my 2 cents in.

[Tetracapillactomist]

Well, there is some change. We are moving. I took an immortality tablet (;)), so I can wait. I like pinching (so does my marathon nerve), it reminds my of games I used to play with girls, when I was twelve years old, fifth grade. What? I'm going backwards, like these changes at the moment. :)

So now, after two years (?), afraid of unlimited character limits. Why not eliminate PM-ing altogether? So much trouble. Well, everything is risky, so maybe we should cut out image uploads, I mean what's the use of that? It's mainly a "cosmetic feature." Anything else to help this supposedly over-taxed system groaning underneath the unreasonably, unbearably heavy load imposed on it by a handful of users? I'll buy two or three Terabyte drives (for redundant backup arrays) and pay the shipping. Where to? No, I know that's not quite how it works, but I mean at some point that makes more sense to me, than arguing over megabytes.
I'm bored of this... What am I arguing here? You really resist this. It's a big issue.

So, like the Shadowblack said - or implied (whichever) - you/he/she/it/we/they/? want(s) to do that much PM-ing... go elsewhere. That's so elegantly succinct and clear in its intentions. That's enough for me, I can understand a little English - and the subtext too. Subtext? Well there's not much of that, actually, it was a clear message: you want PM? This ain't a place for PM-ing, it's a game forum. Go look for a PM-ing place. There, that's simple.

Now where were we...? Ah, yes: one megabyte, two megabytes, three megabytes, four megabytes, five megabytes. One megabyte, two megabytes, three megabytes, four megabytes, five megabytes. One megabyte, two megabytes, three megabytes, four megabytes, five megabytes. One megabyte, two megabytes, three megabytes, four megabytes, five megabytes. One megabyte, ... Ah, I see my silken rope was just delivered!... Aw, you shouldn't have! Must have cost so many bytes pennies! ;)

﴾Oh, for pete's sake, I better put a disclaimer or warning here... the above is "humour." Well, the best I can do at the moment. Tough crowd! How much I'm being paid for this? Nothing?! NOTHING !?! ₠₡₢₣₤₥₦₧₨₩₪₫€₭₮₯₰₱₲₳₴₵ !!!) Look: :)

[Scarbrow]

ok, ok. Point taken. Limit of characters per PM is now 10000, on par with posts. This is a general limit and cannot be adjusted for usergroups.

thank you, TC, for stating it was humour. You manage to confuse me in that respect rather often. I even entertained the idea of being sorry to shake the bees' nest, for a few minutes.

The problem with space is not that is scarce, but rather that we ignore how much do we have, so caution is good. And protecting ourselves from potential abuse is good too. I must also correct your wrong impression: servers do not have petabytes of storage. Even terabytes is still not usual, because on a server, speed and reliability are key, not sorage, and the fastest, most realiable drives are not usually the largest. Even more, the Sryth forum doesn't run on a dedicated server. It's hosted, as we could all see with the recent crash. Web hosting is offered with limited storage and bandwith. Even mere gigabytes cost a pretty penny, and this forum is free for the community. no ads. It takes more than a couple of subscriptions to the game to pay for all this, so we must be careful in using our limited and unknown resources. I'm just trying to do the best thing for everybody, so I, for one, would prefer constructive suggestions to bitter humour

and now, I beg you to remember I'm in a position of a BOFH in this forum, shoud I need to use it. do you need more space? i can quickly make some for you... That's humour too

lets continue the discussion, please

[Tetracapillactomist]

thank you, TC, for stating it was humour. You manage to confuse me in that respect rather often.

and now, I beg you to remember I'm in a position of a BOFH in this forum, shoud I need to use it. do you need more space? i can quickly make some for you... That's humour too


And I appreciate your humour, Scarbrow. :) You can open up the space continuum any time for me.

Hosted... and lack of data... Oh, heck then... do what you can. Sorry for fooling around and speculating without hard data. I couldn't get any sleep, couldn't move => went batty.

If you want to open the airlock into space for me, I'm sure to deserve it, g'ahead. Seriously: threats, joking or otherwise, tickle me to death. :):DXD >:]

Sounds to me like things are pretty well decided and settled. Are you looking for input on any of the specific numbers proposed, or just in general. I'm a little distracted and worn, but will try to focus.

(Believe it or not, all that came "naturally": I'm not a drinker, and I don't use drugs - except for two extra-strength Aspirine every four hours - the preceding posts are a result of pain, sleeplessness, and restlessness due to immobility. Sorry for ruffling smooth feathers. :))

[Oldschool]

.........I beg you to remember I'm in a position of a BOFH in this forum.........

LOL!!!! And............

Oldschool initiates countermeasures and makes appropriate modifications to his desk (http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQI8z_rTh3ifBEbNgkW5CpOpB33AFFQ4 QNPN7R7YYaQigcfrem8).

And you were worried about me getting near the coffee pot.

:cool: ;)

Edit: BOFH "defined" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastard_Operator_From_Hell).

[Tetracapillactomist]

I found an interesting quote by Lao-Tzu:
"He who tip-toes cannot stand. He who strides cannot walk." (Tao-te-ching, bk. 1, ch. 24) I thought it interesting.

I managed 4 1/2 hours of sleep.

As soon as I woke up, I had some thoughts, before the pain came back, as I had to go out, which always makes it return...

Brand new members: 100 PM limit - or even lower, 50 PMs.
They need some, because some are bashful, and reluctant to ask even for strictly game- or forum-related advice on open forum. Although I cuss myself for giving in to that, because such advice serves a better purpose on open forum, where it will be visible to all who might need that advice. I should've at least asked them, in hindsight, whether they minded if I were to have posted the answers in open forum, or move the discussion there, for others' sake. I think we should all attempt that. (I'd like opinions... ?)

New members who remain active could ask to have their limit increased to 100 PMs.

Members who did remain active, following a certain number of open forum posts (50?) could ask to have that limit further increased to 200 PMs.

Now we've come to more or less established forum regulars. Round 200 PMs seems to be the "Golden Rule." Make that the limit, unless they are within 50 or so away from it (or past 100) -- or have already passed it, obviously. In which case, double it, to 400 PMs.

The PM fiends... (Actually, I'll just reserve "fiend" for myself, the others may be "champions.")
Do what you can, what else... I'd say give us 5,000. Or 3,000 to start with, even 2,500, with an open option as for the previous groups, conditions permitting.
In any case, I think we'll be more aware of the situation now, and more careful, more selective about filling that space. Scout had a good idea for general use: create folders based on "date received," with an additional one perhaps: "deletion candidates", "Delete ?" - or some such.
I have already deleted well over 1,000 of my replies. At least 200 to 300 of my inbox messages, I think... and am at 992 messages. I will continue to sort and free up space, as time and other factors allow, actively seeking ways to alleviate the problem.

I have a nagging feeling that something remains unaddressed, but my "bundle of joy" is also nagging for a respite. Is the above feasible? Is it acceptable? I worry it's too much work, too many individual settings... I don't know whether I can think of anything more optimised, but I'll try...

"A journey of a thousand miles begins [...]."

[demojan777]

I hate to be a naysayer and say "Nay," but, nay.

I don't think that character/message/data limits should be allocated on a stat-group basis; I do think that everything should apply to all or none of the registered members of the forum.

Those that aren't active aren't using up that much stuff simply because they aren't, so putting limits on something like that in order to "make room" for more active members seems counterintuitive, like selling real estate on Io and then taking the money and using it to buy land in California (a weird metaphor, I know; the other is carbon credits which still seem counterintuitive to me but that's a whole 'nother thing).

I understand the convenience of having kept PMs on the forum, but not the necessity, especially since there is an option of archiving them someplace else.

If you have a dedicated folder for PMs and you really want to save the correspondence then you can always create further sub-folders and organize them by username or month or something for ease of reference and then sort them. Since online data isn't guaranteed to remain backed up at all, this seems like something preferable for someone who wants to retain the correspondence, since there's nothing protecting all PMs, heck any of our forum info, with 100% certainty.

I'm not saying that the forum is insecure, I'm saying that from my personal experience if I rely on an online service (such as email or what have you) to save my files indefinitely then sooner or later I will lose those files, regardless of the assurances of the service I use. The only way that I know for certain that the files are safe is if they exist on my hard drive and then are backed up (I have all this set up automatically for myself, having learned things the hard way).

[Tetracapillactomist]

Be that as it may, that was (is?) Scarbrow's only offer on the table, unless I'm mistaken.

And the limits were suggested as a safety measure of sorts, both against malicious use and against straining the system.

An attempt at optimising. Scarbrow just asked for constructive suggestions, not nay- or yea-saying.

Why would someone who's never here, perhaps never even posted in open forum, unknown to any and all, suddenly need such a large volume of PMs anyway...
To send out 5 PMs every 30 sec? 600 PMs in an hour? That's all it takes...

Maybe a better real estate analogy would be a much more basic one: to consider it the equivalent of a large family having larger home, a single individual a smaller one. Being practical. And serious.


EDIT: heh... you've expanded your preceding post twofold... I'll wait for the Aspirine to kick in...

Alright, quick note on Demojan's addendum re. PM backup and download: you do realise they do not download as individual messages - as they do when you download mail from your online email client - right? They simply end up as one big file, all senders jumbled together, based on date. The point about options for organising folders based on user names or chronology is moot.

Having stated that again, it does bring up the question: is the single file the only option? I suspect it is, but do not know it for a fact, so:

a) - Is there a way for messages to be downloaded as individual messages, not a single file?

If the answer to a) is negative:

b) - is there a way to pre-sort messages for that single file, based on sender names instead of date received, so that the final file would list the PMs alphabetically first, according to user names, then chronologically, under each name - same as they appear in you forum PM list, when you choose the option to sort them by sender?

(As for secure on-site storage... I lost two HDDs in quick succession then a third one shortly after - and finally, I caused the demise of a fourth, when I slapped my netbook - well, that last one was clearly my fault... Fortunately my triple line-up of backup-only drives are meant for that, and are doing well, but they didn't always exist. And losses still occurred - and always will - between backups. There is no certainty/safety/security, only multiple layers of redundant backups, which includes online, as part of off-site. If your flat suffers some damage [fills with smoke, nothing more, or the sprinklers turn on], you may find that your on-site backup solution has let you down.)

(ASA is doing its job... :))

[demojan777]

No I understand, I was just stating that I didn't agree with the idea of a "sliding scale" for limits is all.

Many forums I have participated in often require the user to post in a specified "Introductions" forum before they are able to access any PMs or make any further posts as a security measure, to make certain it isn't a spammer or anything; no idea if that's an issue here but I don't remember if I had to do that or not when I joined (I don't think so).

Usually spammers are only a problem for forums where anyone with admin access has stopped logging in for months or years (a few good ones went that way a while ago, and a shame because there are people still using the forums and trying to communicate and get things done but most of the posts are from spambots; it's sad).

The whole "Naysayers say nay!" thing was me being weird. It's one of the great headlines from the newspaper that comes up at time intervals in the game SimCity 2000.

[Tetracapillactomist]

I don't mind, but Scarbrow took issue with my previous posts, so in the interest of bringing this to a positive conclusion I tried to stick to the subject and abide by his request.

[Oldschool]

........Brand new members: 100 PM limit - or even lower, 50 PMs......such advice serves a better purpose on open forum, where it will be visible to all who might need that advice. I should've at least asked them, in hindsight, whether they minded if I were to have posted the answers in open forum, or move the discussion there, for others' sake. I think we should all attempt that. (I'd like opinions... ?)

New members who remain active could ask to have their limit increased to 100 PMs.

Members who did remain active, following a certain number of open forum posts (50?) could ask to have that limit further increased to 200 PMs.

Now we've come to more or less established forum regulars. Round 200 PMs seems to be the "Golden Rule." Make that the limit, unless they are within 50 or so away from it (or past 100) -- or have already passed it, obviously. In which case, double it, to 400 PMs.

The PM fiends... (Actually, I'll just reserve "fiend" for myself, the others may be "champions.")
Do what you can, what else... I'd say give us 5,000. Or 3,000 to start with, even 2,500, with an open option as for the previous groups, conditions permitting.
In any case, I think we'll be more aware of the situation now, and more careful, more selective about filling that space. Scout had a good idea for general use: create folders based on "date received," with an additional one perhaps: "deletion candidates", "Delete ?" - or some such.
I have already deleted well over 1,000 of my replies. At least 200 to 300 of my inbox messages, I think... and am at 992 messages. I will continue to sort and free up space, as time and other factors allow, actively seeking ways to alleviate the problem.

I have a nagging feeling that something remains unaddressed, but my "bundle of joy" is also nagging for a respite. Is the above feasible? Is it acceptable? I worry it's too much work, too many individual settings......

Okay I'll try to answer in order.

Re: Posting advice in open forum. Probably better to do so as a rule as I've benefited from answers to other folks' questions beaucoup - both in quantity and quality so to speak. What I like to call "forum osmosis". In fact and no one should take this as meaning not to PM me with questions, chat, how's the weather, etc... because if you want to PM me for anything do so I don't mind at all. Now that that is outta the way.

The main reason I started the Mad walkthroughs were because of the PMs I was getting re: the Mad. Again I don't mind no one should infer differently from any of this. And initially I would answer them the best I could. Then I started a "form" answer by basically copying/pasting other replies because after the first few I kept them. Long story short - in the end I figured there were/are probably others that could benefit that wouldn't PM or weren't even registered so why not post 'em in open forum. Plus to be honest it made things a bit easier and credit and thanks to TG for her work on the "missing" ones. And kudos to the community as a whole because some of the info comes from others' posts in open forum. And the Mad isn't the only "one" that comes to mind - it's probably just the most voluminous.

And this isn't aimed at TC because I know he's of the same thought from open forum replies he's posted. But others read this and may benefit aka Forum Osmosis - nice example, eh? :rolleyes: Anyhoo....

If folks post info in open forum spurred on by a PM my advice would be to not mention/identify the other person as they may wish to remain anonymous. Sometimes that may be the reason for PM'ing in the first place.

And the Hint's thread is a good place for stuff of a general nature or the specific threads for specific info.

Next point(s) and another onion sack please as I've blown this one up. :rolleyes:;)

Re: something unaddressed. Character count....? Just guessing.

Re: Feasibility, acceptable, etc...

Better left to Scarbrow since he's more knowledgeable and to be honest he'll probably be shouldering most or all of the work.

I've looked a little at the documentation so I'm not positive but I think....

It seems feasible but each category/permission level would require a separate usergroup. And to change members' category would require migration. It seems more tiers = more work.

And this is mainly a question as I'm even less sure of this.

There is a user rank system which seems to be similar to the old forums'. Designated by smiley faces instead of stars it's based on post count and is related to and maybe can be tied to user groups. I'll try to delve more into it later but time's a rare commodity of late it seems.

Scarbrow would it be possible and if so easier to tie ranks in to a tiered system like TC mentions so that members "permissions" would be automatically adjusted as their post count increases like Dooli mentioned earlier.

And Scarbrow if you need me to research any of this let me know what and I'll make the time.

I hate to be a naysayer and say "Nay," but, nay.

I don't think that character/message/data limits should be allocated on a stat-group basis; I do think that everything should apply to all or none of the registered members of the forum.

Those that aren't active aren't using up that much stuff simply because they aren't, so putting limits on something like that in order to "make room" for more active members seems counterintuitive, like selling real estate on Io and then taking the money and using it to buy land in California (a weird metaphor, I know; the other is carbon credits which still seem counterintuitive to me but that's a whole 'nother thing).

I understand the convenience of having kept PMs on the forum, but not the necessity, especially since there is an option of archiving them someplace else.

If you have a dedicated folder for PMs and you really want to save the correspondence then you can always create further sub-folders and organize them by username or month or something for ease of reference and then sort them. Since online data isn't guaranteed to remain backed up at all, this seems like something preferable for someone who wants to retain the correspondence, since there's nothing protecting all PMs, heck any of our forum info, with 100% certainty.

I'm not saying that the forum is insecure, I'm saying that from my personal experience if I rely on an online service (such as email or what have you) to save my files indefinitely then sooner or later I will lose those files, regardless of the assurances of the service I use. The only way that I know for certain that the files are safe is if they exist on my hard drive and then are backed up (I have all this set up automatically for myself, having learned things the hard way).

Good points about the need for PM storage by non active members, etc... which needs considered and about the folders which I'll get to later since the answer ties into another question. Although it's a bit different than actual folders the end result should be the same - specific PMs downloaded as a group(s).

And don't get me started on the haughty-taughty (hoighty toighty) hypocrisy of carbon credits........

.........Many forums I have participated in often require the user to post in a specified "Introductions" forum before they are able to access any PMs or make any further posts as a security measure, to make certain it isn't a spammer or anything; no idea if that's an issue here but I don't remember if I had to do that or not when I joined (I don't think so).............

There is a check tied to game content on account creation as I encountered it with my test account. There is also a referral option (mods or admins only I think) that bypasses that and I think when we all initially moved Havoc used that because I don't recall a content check.

They simply end up as one big file, all senders jumbled together, based on date. The point about options for organising folders based on user names or chronology is moot.

Having stated that again, it does bring up the question: is the single file the only option? I suspect it is, but do not know it for a fact, so:

a) - Is there a way for messages to be downloaded as individual messages, not a single file?




Yes confirmed in theory (haven't tested). Definitely not staff only as it's available on OS2.

I may have to edit this as it may be a bit off since I don't want to risk going back to the PM screen to clarify but....

You have the option to select individual messages via a toggle check or en masse by date. You then have an option to download said selected messages (or delete, move, etc...). One could select them via member, specific discussion, etc... then download just those messages as a group. Similar to putting them in a folder. And I don't know for sure but I think you could move them to a folder first then toggle each one in the folder (maybe the folder as a whole?) and download them thusly.

This selection field is right below the PMs not at the bottom of the page as that is a different field and is the one that only allows you to d/l them as a whole. The locations may be off as I'm not looking at them but the one that allows you to select just the toggled ones is higher than the other one.

Edit: Checked although I didn't actually download all 6 ;) PMs outta my saved folder. You get the same individual PM options for saved folders so it would be possible to move and sort 'em then download them as a group(s). You can actually toggle the folder as a whole folder or individual messages.

[Tetracapillactomist]

Wow! That's a hefty post with some important reminders and information - will get a shortcut and a copy of it; you'll get a thanks - and a rep, later, when allowed. :)


I know you had to go at it in two stages - but as an aside, can't you "Duplicate/Clone Tab" in your browser then switch to the newly created tab and navigate to the page you need use as reference? (I hardly ever have fewer than eight tabs open, and on this netbook toy, a minimum of three stay open to the forum, a fourth one often open onto the game, when needed for any ingame reference, with wiki pages open in another group of tabs, when playing new content - which hasn't been in a while, &c., &c., &c., ... :))


Oops - just getting a PNEW :) from you at this very moment, so I'll hit submit, see what's happening...

EDIT: right, I see what happened - you can move my interloper message after your conclusion, if you wish.
I also see what you mean by those individual settings which I under-utilised; and yes, entire subfolders can be downloaded, but what I meant (and doubted was possible), is this: can you end up with a download that consists of individual messages as they appear in our forum PM space, rather than one single file? I'm sure you can't do that, but it was worth asking. :)

[Oldschool]

Thanks TC and I'd add another edit but it seems I filled a 100 lb. seed tater sack up this time aka exceeded the post character count with my edit. ;)

The more functional download option is at the bottom border of the PM "box" and has a drop down after the text "Selected messages".

Hope that helps any archiving folks need to do.

[Oldschool]

......can you end up with a download that consists of individual messages as they appear in our forum PM space, rather than one single file? I'm sure you can't do that, but it was worth asking. :)[/I]

Dunno for sure - have to be tested I'd think although I'll check the docs to see if that is specifically mentioned.

Hmmmm wondering if they download in the order that they are selected/toggled. I doubt it, but I'd think they'd download as they are initially listed which should be chronologically. [Edit:] And everything together in a single file.

[Oldschool]

Not sure exactly what you're wanting TC but I think this should do it.

It's a Vbullentin PM Reader. CNET's relaiable and I've already tested it and it appears ok. But even so...

WARNING: USE AT YOUR OWN RISK

http://download.cnet.com/vBulletin-PM-Reader/3000-2367_4-10612431.html

It should also make things a bit easier as you can download PMs "wholesale" via the bottom option (gotta be XML though) and it shows them (I tested it) as they are in your PM box/folders (as they're ordered/foldered/etc..).

Still checking out the other thing and I also got sidetracked by the RSS stuff (Facebook thread). I'm a bit more inclined to think it's related to it - maybe the return link changed and needs updated.

Still checking both the PM stuff and RSS and will post accordingly.

Edit: Tired and multitasking distracted pardon me. Forgot to mention - pretty intuitive software if I could figure it out. You'll have to import your PM dowload and may have to create a database. I did the latter first without thinking so I don't know for sure if you can just import yours without creating one.

Hopefully this'll serve your (and anyone else's) purpose or be a close substitute.

Edit2: It seems it may be tied to MS Outlook as it's style looks the same although the download page doesn't mention any prerequisite software that I noticed.

[Oldschool]

Wow......!

I see what the commotion was/is about now. Just took a look at that XML file without that reader - definitely NOT user/viewer friendly at all.

[Tetracapillactomist]

I think you found the ticket I wasn't even looking for, as far as downloaded XML files are concerned. :) Thank you.

And same here... going, going, gone. Even the fumes I was running on, they're a-gone (keep missing letters or finding the wrong keys). :)

Have a good slumber. :)

[Scarbrow]

A great contribution, Oldschool. Thank you very much, and be duly repped for your effort.

Now a question for the heavy PM users: with this new tool, can you manage with the current PM limit? I think it should be enough, but I want to hear your opinions

[Lightwielder]

I haven't checked it out yet, but I'll take a look tomorrow.

Even without it, yes, I can still manage.

EDIT: Oh, before I go, I noticed something earlier. I was PMing earlier and noticed that you can send a message with a Quote in it, even if there aren't any words on the outside. I know that it used to require one "official"(non-quoted, that is) word at least before you could send. Is this intentional? Did you make it that Quotes now add to the character count(as was not the case previously), remove the one-word-minimum, or was this phenomenon unintentional?

[Scarbrow]

completely unintentional. For all I knew, there was no minimum character count for PMs. Rules for counting chars are the same in all the forum: posts, sigs, messages, sigs, etc

[Tetracapillactomist]

I would definitely like the limit increased, because my PM box is in a constant state of near-lockdown, no room to manoeuvre - and due to a backlog and circumstances, it will take a while to catch up and sort everything - but I don't intend to fill it up so liberally, and the XML reader will help prevent it. OS can tell you more about that, but the conclusion was that given the usage pattern, even a global increase wouldn't have the feared negative effect (again, based on established individual and overall patterns of usage).

But if the concern for potential malicious use of the PMs is still there, limiting it for non-active / highly sporadic or casual users / contributors should also counterbalance the potential risk presented by the increase of the limit for active / regular users / contributors (again, referring back to those usage patterns, the increase just doesn't seem to predict any potentially catastrophic overload).

So yes, please, the increase, but I promise not to abuse it. In fact I'll continue to shuffle and sort until I have a system worked out for it, and will always think of the additional space as a safety valve/overflow/run-off container, not as something to fill and be kept filled (i.e., I fall off a cliff and can't take of the PMs at all for a period of time - it happens).

I had no real idea how resisted and difficult this request would be after seeing the original, but I assure you that I for one have no desire to go through it again in the future if it's done this time. I'd rather carve messages into rocks than post another request for PM limit increase in the future, as long as I'm relieved of this claustrophobia-inducing PM situation now. :) And, as it coincided with some excruciating physical pain, I won't soon forget it. :) That wasn't meant as bitter humour, so don't take it as such.

Don't Fence Me In (Armstrong & His All-Stars) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3ebEEe8VEw&NR=1&feature=fvwp) Don't Fence Me In (Ella) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw1KdIDRwww)

[Oldschool]

Been tinkering with the PM reader a bit and it's got a compression function and better yet a fairly comprehensive search function which should even be all the more handy for folks with large numbers to sort through.

[Scarbrow]

Short notice:

Yes I can set up automatic group promotions based on several values. But I will not, for the moment.

Since there are few users with big PM needs, I have manually made available the "Heavy PM users" usergroup to the current heaviest users. If somebody else needs it, just PM me. However, I'm going to take Tetracapillactomist's word and apply to everybody: you can use the increased limit, but don't take it for granted. If I detect abuse, misuse, or persistent (continued) use of the extra allotment, I may decide to remove the extra privileges. Use it with care, for I'm not inclined to increase the limit further.

If further changes are required, I will post them here.


EDIT: There's a new option on your Control Panel: Group Memberships (http://www.srythforum.com/profile.php?do=editusergroups). You can ask for admittance in the group at any time from ther. All mods and admins have been added as group leaders of "Heavy PM Users" group. Group leaders have rights to allow people to come inside the group. The group leadership is done from that same page. Group leaders gain have the groups' permissions as a secondary group by default, but if you desire so, you can be removed from the group while keeping your "group leader" status.

[Oldschool]

Good idea Scarbrow as that makes the most sense and I'm guessing when dealing with usergroups it's the easiet to implement.

And folks I'm not one of the big PM holders as I'm just the opposite.

But if you're a heavy user or just like holding onto your PMs that viewer's easy to use, but despite it's simplicity it has some good functionality especially the search option.

[Tetracapillactomist]

I can only speak in my name, although I'm sure everybody owes and feels gratitude for everything you do to help around here, and on the wiki.

Thank you Scarbrow. Thank you Oldschool.

Many thanks to everyone who weighed in and contributed their opinion.

A particular and personal thank you goes to Thingirl, who re-initiated this thread, and to Meduwyn and Doolipalally for their support.

[Lightwielder]

I'm the kind of person that always feels that I'm taking too much whenever someone goes out of their way to do something for me(or when asking someone to do so).

However, I still want to say that this was very gracious of you Scarbrow. Thank you. I will definitely make use of this.

Duly repped.

[Tetracapillactomist]

I'm the kind of person that always feels that I'm taking too much whenever someone goes out of their way to do something for me(or when asking someone to do so).

So am I, and so I tend not to, if it's for me alone. (But I am flawed.)

[texlaw1992]

...I think it might be fun for Scarbrow to limit Tetra's posts to 140 characters for a day and see how he copes. Can Tetra use Twitter? (lol)

[Tetracapillactomist]

Look above you, Tex. ;) (And below.) But yes, I could cope with being booted as well. I can cope with a few things... :)

[Scarbrow]

In light of the new data (http://srythforum.com/showthread.php?t=1929) (kudos to Tetracapillactomist for providing it) the PM storage limit for the "Heavy PM Users" usergroup has been raised to 10000.

The new limit will be permanent unless storage limit becomes a problem in the future (which according to current data, is not likely to happen)

[Young Ned]

Very cool. Thanks, Scarbrow!

[Lightwielder]

Is very happy with this new development. :D