FabSwingers.com > Forums > Fabswingers.com site feedback > Deleting your own forum posts
Deleting your own forum posts
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *j_mark OP Couple
over a year ago
Forum Mod Totteridge/Whetstone |
You can now blank a forum post you made within a 10 minute period of posting
If you made a mistake for e.g.
Admin x |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By *j_mark OP Couple
over a year ago
Forum Mod Totteridge/Whetstone |
[Removed by poster at 21/05/09 14:55:07] |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By *j_mark OP Couple
over a year ago
Forum Mod Totteridge/Whetstone |
"[Removed by poster at 21/05/09 14:55:07]"
That's what happens
|
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
[Removed by poster at 21/05/09 15:10:38] |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Cool! |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Works good here, thanks!
!5 minutes though, not 10 lol
Tony  |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
[Removed by poster at 21/05/09 16:47:49] |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
[Removed by poster at 21/05/09 16:57:15] |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
cool like it lol |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
[Removed by poster at 21/05/09 17:20:54] |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Excellent! |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Nice one Admin,however,sorry to gripe but why not remove every trace of the deleted post instead of leaving an explination and avitar?
If several ppl use the facility on one thread it will soon be cluttered up and waste site space with the remnants of deleted messages.
Some threads get very long without adding to their length in this manner.
Just a thought.
XXXX
|
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
|
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Christ on a bike, there really is no pleasing some folk. |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Cool, although if you have written a bit of a war and peace and have cocked a few things up on it, maybe an edit button may be of use too |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cool, although if you have written a bit of a war and peace and have cocked a few things up on it, maybe an edit button may be of use too"
Yeah but you have the Preview button for that,so it kind of removes the need for an Edit facility.
All you have to do is proof read and make changes before posting.
XXXX |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Christ on a bike, there really is no pleasing some folk."
Its common sense,we were told we can only have 6 pics in each gallery now because of limited site space.
So whats the point in clogging space up with deleted messages?
XXXX |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Christ on a bike, there really is no pleasing some folk.
Its common sense,we were told we can only have 6 pics in each gallery now because of limited site space.
So whats the point in clogging space up with deleted messages?
XXXX"
Go check the forums out with some of the associated drivel in there, do you honestly believe there is a space management issue here............... |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cool, although if you have written a bit of a war and peace and have cocked a few things up on it, maybe an edit button may be of use too"
If you are writing War and Blah then consider writing it in word, spell checking etc then cut and paste it into a reply box on here, easy feckin peasy |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cool, although if you have written a bit of a war and peace and have cocked a few things up on it, maybe an edit button may be of use too
Yeah but you have the Preview button for that,so it kind of removes the need for an Edit facility.
All you have to do is proof read and make changes before posting.
XXXX"
I should really get into the habit of using the preview button. I still have the deluded idea that i can spot mistakes before i've posted them. |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Christ on a bike, there really is no pleasing some folk.
Its common sense,we were told we can only have 6 pics in each gallery now because of limited site space.
So whats the point in clogging space up with deleted messages?
XXXX
Go check the forums out with some of the associated drivel in there, do you honestly believe there is a space management issue here..............."
Well according to Admin site space seems to be the issue as far as pic's are concerned.Hence the drop from 9 per Gallery to 6.
On the other hand, the cynical might say its another way of getting ppl to become paying members if they want to post more pics.
XXXX |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By *j_mark OP Couple
over a year ago
Forum Mod Totteridge/Whetstone |
"Well according to Admin site space seems to be the issue as far as pic's are concerned.Hence the drop from 9 per Gallery to 6"
Just a quick explanation
It's not just site space, it's space on our servers, bandwidth on uploading and bandwidth when people view the photos. Bandwidth and disk space are pretty much our biggest costs. The space of forum posts and bandwidth is a tiny fraction of the photos.
Limits. There isn't a limit of 6 per gallery there's a total limit of 12, which is different.
We introduced this limit because our software at the time we took over the site counted gallery numbers in total whereas previously the software counted private/public and restricted at 9 max in each gallery.
On average most people had less than 12 pictures and if they had over 12, they were fine to stay.
However if we suddenly increased total number of allowable pics to 18 (9+9) we'd have actually had a massive increase in number of photos people added because the majority of photos people have are public and we'd have increased the potential number of these public photos to 18 (doubled!). Ideally of course we'd have stuck with the 9+9 limits but we had a million other areas to concentrate on and creating new programming to handle that wasn't top of the list.
Which is why we went for 12 total. A compromise, if you will.
Admin x |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Christ on a bike, there really is no pleasing some folk.
Its common sense,we were told we can only have 6 pics in each gallery now because of limited site space.
So whats the point in clogging space up with deleted messages?
XXXX
Go check the forums out with some of the associated drivel in there, do you honestly believe there is a space management issue here..............."
lol... You really do dislike people enjoying themselves eh.
Come on man... lighten up.. Takes all sorts you know! |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well according to Admin site space seems to be the issue as far as pic's are concerned.Hence the drop from 9 per Gallery to 6
Just a quick explanation
It's not just site space, it's space on our servers, bandwidth on uploading and bandwidth when people view the photos. Bandwidth and disk space are pretty much our biggest costs. The space of forum posts and bandwidth is a tiny fraction of the photos.
Limits. There isn't a limit of 6 per gallery there's a total limit of 12, which is different.
We introduced this limit because our software at the time we took over the site counted gallery numbers in total whereas previously the software counted private/public and restricted at 9 max in each gallery.
On average most people had less than 12 pictures and if they had over 12, they were fine to stay.
However if we suddenly increased total number of allowable pics to 18 (9+9) we'd have actually had a massive increase in number of photos people added because the majority of photos people have are public and we'd have increased the potential number of these public photos to 18 (doubled!). Ideally of course we'd have stuck with the 9+9 limits but we had a million other areas to concentrate on and creating new programming to handle that wasn't top of the list.
Which is why we went for 12 total. A compromise, if you will.
Admin x"
We can appreciate what your saying about band width etc.
However we viewed a paying profile today with 40 pic's in one Gallery alone and that was just one profile.
All we were saying was that it seems O.K to use up band width for pic's if your a paying member but not if your free.
Surely it would be fairer all round and save on band width if the free members pic's were raised to say 20 total and the paying members dropped to maybe 25.
At the moment a total of 12 for free members while some pay members have upward of 40 in just one Gallery seems very unfair.
XXXX |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well according to Admin site space seems to be the issue as far as pic's are concerned.Hence the drop from 9 per Gallery to 6
Just a quick explanation
It's not just site space, it's space on our servers, bandwidth on uploading and bandwidth when people view the photos. Bandwidth and disk space are pretty much our biggest costs. The space of forum posts and bandwidth is a tiny fraction of the photos.
Limits. There isn't a limit of 6 per gallery there's a total limit of 12, which is different.
We introduced this limit because our software at the time we took over the site counted gallery numbers in total whereas previously the software counted private/public and restricted at 9 max in each gallery.
On average most people had less than 12 pictures and if they had over 12, they were fine to stay.
However if we suddenly increased total number of allowable pics to 18 (9+9) we'd have actually had a massive increase in number of photos people added because the majority of photos people have are public and we'd have increased the potential number of these public photos to 18 (doubled!). Ideally of course we'd have stuck with the 9+9 limits but we had a million other areas to concentrate on and creating new programming to handle that wasn't top of the list.
Which is why we went for 12 total. A compromise, if you will.
Admin x
We can appreciate what your saying about band width etc.
However we viewed a paying profile today with 40 pic's in one Gallery alone and that was just one profile.
All we were saying was that it seems O.K to use up band width for pic's if your a paying member but not if your free.
Surely it would be fairer all round and save on band width if the free members pic's were raised to say 20 total and the paying members dropped to maybe 25.
At the moment a total of 12 for free members while some pay members have upward of 40 in just one Gallery seems very unfair.
XXXX "
So the paying members subsidise the non paying members - is that it ?
If the amount of pictures that paying members are allowed to have is a problem then of course there is a simple solution ... become a paying member |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You know it would be a really really sad sad situation if this now turned into a 'them and us' situation...
If we thought for one single minute paying would cause a non paying member any grief or make them feel second best in anyway we'd rather leave the site altogether..
We pay up because it is supposed to support the site, for all! We had more pics on before we paid.. but like was said, if they were there they were left alone.. If it made it fairer to others we'd take some off..
Please.. lets not make this a them and us.. Look what happened at SH .. Turned sour eh... |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You know it would be a really really sad sad situation if this now turned into a 'them and us' situation...
If we thought for one single minute paying would cause a non paying member any grief or make them feel second best in anyway we'd rather leave the site altogether..
We pay up because it is supposed to support the site, for all! We had more pics on before we paid.. but like was said, if they were there they were left alone.. If it made it fairer to others we'd take some off..
Please.. lets not make this a them and us.. Look what happened at SH .. Turned sour eh... "
Agree dot com......
It's each individuals (or couples) choice whether or not to pay.
But surely we are entitled to a little extra..... its not bloody much!!
And for my tuppence worth.........well worth the extra quid a week!!!
|
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well according to Admin site space seems to be the issue as far as pic's are concerned.Hence the drop from 9 per Gallery to 6
Just a quick explanation
It's not just site space, it's space on our servers, bandwidth on uploading and bandwidth when people view the photos. Bandwidth and disk space are pretty much our biggest costs. The space of forum posts and bandwidth is a tiny fraction of the photos.
Limits. There isn't a limit of 6 per gallery there's a total limit of 12, which is different.
We introduced this limit because our software at the time we took over the site counted gallery numbers in total whereas previously the software counted private/public and restricted at 9 max in each gallery.
On average most people had less than 12 pictures and if they had over 12, they were fine to stay.
However if we suddenly increased total number of allowable pics to 18 (9+9) we'd have actually had a massive increase in number of photos people added because the majority of photos people have are public and we'd have increased the potential number of these public photos to 18 (doubled!). Ideally of course we'd have stuck with the 9+9 limits but we had a million other areas to concentrate on and creating new programming to handle that wasn't top of the list.
Which is why we went for 12 total. A compromise, if you will.
Admin x
We can appreciate what your saying about band width etc.
However we viewed a paying profile today with 40 pic's in one Gallery alone and that was just one profile.
All we were saying was that it seems O.K to use up band width for pic's if your a paying member but not if your free.
Surely it would be fairer all round and save on band width if the free members pic's were raised to say 20 total and the paying members dropped to maybe 25.
At the moment a total of 12 for free members while some pay members have upward of 40 in just one Gallery seems very unfair.
XXXX
So the paying members subsidise the non paying members - is that it ?
If the amount of pictures that paying members are allowed to have is a problem then of course there is a simple solution ... become a paying member"
We weren't aware that we were being subsidised by paying members.
We joined a free site.
What we're saying is why reduce the pic total for free members and then raise it,way over the top,for paying members.
It seems its been done to the detriment of free members,by the band width taken from them and given to paying members.
As we said before,we agree that those who pay should have more pic's but not at the expense of those that don't.
Finaly,the quoted reply above adds further credence to what we said in an earlier post,about certain things being done to encourage ppl to become paying members.
XXXX
|
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
[Removed by poster at 23/05/09 08:18:23] |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
@ Trace and Ric
To answer your post point by point ..
Quote "We weren't aware that we were being subsidised by paying members"
But if we reduce site supporters picture allowance to give no site supporters a bigger allowance - is that not a subsidy ?
Quote "We joined a free site"
It still is free, and non site supporters still have all the facilities that existed prior to to the birth of the site supporter option
Quote "What we're saying is why reduce the pic total for free members and then raise it,way over the top,for paying members.
It seems its been done to the detriment of free members,by the band width taken from them and given to paying members.
As we said before,we agree that those who pay should have more pic's but not at the expense of those that don't"
SJ_Mark explained that in an earlier post - to the best of my understanding it was nothing to do with the site supporter option, but due to technical issues |
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |
