
Because it wastes bandwith and clutters the site.???

Got a question about Secret Leeds? Start here
User avatar
tyke bhoy
PostsCOLON 2101
JoinedCOLON Wed 21 Feb, 2007 4:48 am
LocationCOLON Leeds/Wakefield
CONTACTCOLON

Postby tyke bhoy » Sat 23 Nov, 2013 5:07 pm

So posted someone who published images he described as apam on a thread entitled "who's in charge" which has now disappeared I guess we know the answer now Duncan and while you pay the bills it certainly doesn't appear to be you. This site is going through a slow death and users being intimidated is not a way to save it.
living a stones throw from the Leeds MDC border at Lofthouse

http://tykebhoy.wordpress.com/
User avatar
tyke bhoy
PostsCOLON 2101
JoinedCOLON Wed 21 Feb, 2007 4:48 am
LocationCOLON Leeds/Wakefield
CONTACTCOLON

Postby tyke bhoy » Sat 23 Nov, 2013 8:44 pm

To be clear the sites bandwidth is only affected if someone visits the site and then a thread. A thread that is predominantly text has a fairly immaterial affect on bandwidth. But visitors to a thread that has a large amount of images embedded do use a lot of bandwidth whether the images are linked to uploaded. Uploading images also uses a significant amount of bandwidth. For the avoidance of doubt I'm not suggesting posting even if it has images is a serious strain on bandwidth for the site just what a vacuous argument removing a thread has any significant affect on the site's overall bandwidth actually is.
living a stones throw from the Leeds MDC border at Lofthouse

http://tykebhoy.wordpress.com/
User avatar
BarFly
PostsCOLON 524
JoinedCOLON Sun 06 Nov, 2011 3:39 pm
LocationCOLON In t' pub in Leeds (see picture).

Postby BarFly » Sat 23 Nov, 2013 10:25 pm

I don't want to second-guess somebody else's meaning but I always read "waste of bandwidth" in the same way as "waste of ink" in a newspaper -- meaning not that the commodity being used is expensive but that the comment need not exist.
As to the content of the thread -- if you're willing to pay for hosting that's fine but suggesting people use an advert blocker on a site supported by adverts is a little like telling somebody at your local how to get free drinks. OK, that's a little dramatic, perhaps, but it's certainly not polite.
I have to confess I very rarely see adverts on the internet and I've a whole arsenal of tools I can use to keep it that way, but I'm not about to recommend them to anyone for use on this site. Hypocritical, perhaps, but I try to be polite about it.
Apologies if I'm being rude, but you can't buy somebody a pint and smile when you're typing and I post only in an attempt to explain what may be the reason for the thread deletion.
User avatar
tyke bhoy
PostsCOLON 2101
JoinedCOLON Wed 21 Feb, 2007 4:48 am
LocationCOLON Leeds/Wakefield
CONTACTCOLON

Postby tyke bhoy » Sat 23 Nov, 2013 10:56 pm

Hi Barfly. Yes that's the thread. It's subject asked if anyone was in charge and one of the responses firmly established that as well as reiterating the protcol for complaints. Yes unfortunately several of the other posts did refer to tools which may affect the viability of this site but the post with a direct link to such a tool was removed.

Why then remove the whole thread? It certainly wasn't wasting bandwidth, it did still refer to tsomething that the very internet savvy would understand about and have already deployed but that many users won't. I've just removed this site from my exception list on one of those unmentionable tools
living a stones throw from the Leeds MDC border at Lofthouse

http://tykebhoy.wordpress.com/

User avatar
BarFly
PostsCOLON 524
JoinedCOLON Sun 06 Nov, 2011 3:39 pm
LocationCOLON In t' pub in Leeds (see picture).

Postby BarFly » Sat 23 Nov, 2013 11:05 pm

tyke bhoy wrote:
Why then remove the whole thread? It certainly wasn't wasting bandwidth, it did still refer to tsomething that the very internet savvy would understand about and have already deployed but that many users won't. I've just removed this site from my exception list on one of those unmentionable tools
I'm guessing convenience. I'm not defending the action, as such, just posted why I think it happened. As I alluded to I don't think a thread discussing something that could cut the site's only funding stream is very beneficial to it.

User avatar
tyke bhoy
PostsCOLON 2101
JoinedCOLON Wed 21 Feb, 2007 4:48 am
LocationCOLON Leeds/Wakefield
CONTACTCOLON

Postby tyke bhoy » Sat 23 Nov, 2013 11:16 pm

BarFly wrote:
I'm guessing convenience. I'm not defending the action, as such, just posted why I think it happened. As I alluded to I don't think a thread discussing something that could cut the site's only funding stream is very beneficial to it.


True but then that funding stream is also dependent on people actually visiting the site. Heavy handed censorship is likely to deter those experiencing it from visiting/contributing.
living a stones throw from the Leeds MDC border at Lofthouse

http://tykebhoy.wordpress.com/
User avatar
BarFly
PostsCOLON 524
JoinedCOLON Sun 06 Nov, 2011 3:39 pm
LocationCOLON In t' pub in Leeds (see picture).

Postby BarFly » Sat 23 Nov, 2013 11:27 pm

tyke bhoy wrote:
BarFly wrote:
I'm guessing convenience. I'm not defending the action, as such, just posted why I think it happened. As I alluded to I don't think a thread discussing something that could cut the site's only funding stream is very beneficial to it.


True but then that funding stream is also dependent on people actually visiting the site. Heavy handed censorship is likely to deter those experiencing it from visiting/contributing.

There are two sides to every story* so I'll stop posting and let dsco respond as he wishes.

*Actually, I subscribe to the Extreme idea that there are three sides "Yours, mine and the truth" but two will suffice here Regular Smiley .
User avatar
chemimike
PostsCOLON 360
JoinedCOLON Fri 14 Mar, 2008 7:23 pm
LocationCOLON Reading

Postby chemimike » Sun 24 Nov, 2013 12:50 am

I belong to a site similar to Secret Leeds for another area, which has similar aims in promoting knowledge of the history , old buildings and people of the area. Because of the aforesaid aims, posts and threads which have no bearing on these aims, though encouraged for the purposes of bringing together a community, are culled at regular intervals, as they will be of no interest in a few weeks/months time. The thread being discussed, and indeed this thread, would seem a suitable candidate for this treatment

User avatar
cnosni
Site Admin
PostsCOLON 4199
JoinedCOLON Wed 28 Mar, 2007 4:47 pm

Postby cnosni » Sun 24 Nov, 2013 6:04 pm

tyke bhoy wrote:
BarFly wrote:
I'm guessing convenience. I'm not defending the action, as such, just posted why I think it happened. As I alluded to I don't think a thread discussing something that could cut the site's only funding stream is very beneficial to it.


True but then that funding stream is also dependent on people actually visiting the site. Heavy handed censorship is likely to deter those experiencing it from visiting/contributing.


I fail to see any form of censorship withe the deletion of that thread,though i did not do it i would have done after my final post which was,something to the effect of,If everyone is happy do we consider this thread /discussion closed"

I went back to see if there was a reply but it had gone.

The trick is to keep the site on track,and though the question posed by the O.P was a valid one it could easily have been brought to the attention of dsco or other mods by the normal methods.

The last thing we want is to turn the site into a talking shop,and quite frankly if it did then i would think that you would see a real deterioration in visitors.
Don't get me started!!
My Flickr photos-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cnosni/
Secret Leeds contact
info@secretleeds.com
dsco
Site Admin
PostsCOLON 872
JoinedCOLON Fri 26 Jan, 2007 8:21 am

Postby dsco » Sun 24 Nov, 2013 9:18 pm

I didn't delete that thread, I closed it (as recommended and agreed by various participants, including yourself Tyke) explaining that I was doing so because I didn't think it added anything to the site. If you would like to reference it for any reason you can find it here: http://www.secretleeds.com/forum/Messages.aspx?ThreadID=5031

Given that I'd removed a bunch of posts which meant that it didn't make a great deal of sense any more and the tone as getting unpleasant as well, I just took the easy route and shut it down. I should have explained my reasoning (and pulled PhillD up for being so grumpy!) but I was being lazy. I'm full of the cold this weekend and I couldn't be doing with the hassle. Apologies to anyone who was confused or offended by my actions.

Regards "bandwidth", you're quite right there would have been no reason to delete that thread for any technical purpose. The site database is under 2GB (mostly taken up by photos) and as anyone who is familiar with such things will know, a couple of gig is nowt to worry about. My main job is keeping it all properly indexed so that it doesn't get too slow, but that's a housekeeping/maintenance issue common to the administration of any database.

As others have pointed out, it's more a question of keeping things on topic, though god knows we go off it often enough! Clearly I don't want ongoing discussion of ad-blocking software on the site cos it's the ads that keep the lights on round here. So I shut it down, following suggestions to do so from several participants.

I definitely didn't delete the thread though. I've been accused of censorship and likened to Josef Goebbels for lesser crimes in the past, and I do try not to make the same mistake twice Wink
Contact me via ask@tyrell.mobi if you have any questions or comments about the site.

Return to





Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 1 and 0 guests
http://secretleeds.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5039&sid=3c5d012a71ba4472c4bcda943abd26da
secretleeds.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-39
54271
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:5G2WAWVDMTYJAV5JPLKTDOCE2SPYVERX
<urn:uuid:a5947d8e-e9db-4c32-b1ed-c8d853ed8f32>
2017-09-21T12:28:18Z
185.176.40.48
text/html
sha1:UEVHKTTT2SAVODNBIXYCB7DGLDZNNXDH
<urn:uuid:cb0aaf4e-6f60-463a-b3d2-c2e7deb771cf>
http://secretleeds.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5039&sid=3c5d012a71ba4472c4bcda943abd26da
response
<urn:uuid:d5d4f0c1-15db-4db7-8a60-34896dd91dcf>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-185-235-6.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-39
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf