PDA

View Full Version : Restarting Word Association



Fram
2005-May-02, 07:44 AM
Now that the BA has pruned Babbling, I was thinking: the Word Association Game is huge and no one is ever going to read through it anymore (correct me if I'm wrong). I understand that people like it (I have posted there as well), but I have a suggestion: what if we start a new WAG, and let the old one die. That way, in six months time (or whenever), the BA can just delete it. We have seen now that the post counts aren't affected, so no one has to worry that all his fluffing has become useless after all 8) , and the database (and search engine) is relieved from another 20000 posts.

mopc
2005-May-02, 08:00 AM
No problemo, and it should be renamed 'increase your post count effortlessly game' :lol:

mickal555
2005-May-02, 09:05 AM
I voted no, then read your post and now think "yes"
:oops:

WaxRubiks
2005-May-02, 09:45 AM
even if the old thread was left the occasional person might bump it thinking that it was still active, so I suppose it would have to be locked....

Candy
2005-May-02, 10:36 AM
I voted yes.

Of course, that's where ATP got his name from. He often links to it. :wink:

And HUb' started posting to it. Those are priceless. :D

I'd like to see some sort of WAG stay, though. It really is a fun thread when the BABB is dead in the wee hours of the morning.

Andromeda321
2005-May-02, 02:24 PM
So who is so far in the majority that voted to get rid of it altogether?
*raises hand*

Maksutov
2005-May-02, 02:49 PM
So who is so far in the majority that voted to get rid of it altogether?
*raises hand*
Hand raised here.

Brady Yoon
2005-May-02, 02:54 PM
So who is so far in the majority that voted to get rid of it altogether?
*raises hand*
Hand raised here.

Me too.

WaxRubiks
2005-May-02, 02:59 PM
Edited because I got on the wrong thread. :oops:

Candy
2005-May-02, 03:06 PM
So who is so far in the majority that voted to get rid of it altogether?
*raises hand*
Hand raised here.
Now, remember that day where you and I were slamming between Word Threads on the BABB & FWIS? You can't say you didn't have fun that day. I think we included the Famous Last Words thread, too. 8-[

Maksutov
2005-May-02, 03:08 PM
Edited because I got on the wrong thread. :oops:
Man, you don't even qualify as a pte-"rana"-don! Here are your marching orders, git! :wink:

2005-May-02, 03:10 PM
Tbh, I really couldn't care less! :o :o :o :lol: :lol: :lol:

Maksutov
2005-May-02, 03:10 PM
So who is so far in the majority that voted to get rid of it altogether?
*raises hand*
Hand raised here.
Now, remember that day where you and I were slamming between Word Threads on the BABB & FWIS? You can't say you didn't have fun that day. I think we included the Famous Last Words thread, too. 8-[
Fun is fun, but fluff remains fluff, no matter how sincere the posts! 8)

Makgraf
2005-May-02, 08:39 PM
What about the pheonix option? Every 5 pages or so it's deleted and a new thread with the last word of the old one. I agree that's the old WAG thread is just eating up bandwidth and should go.

Nicolas
2005-May-02, 08:46 PM
according to me, it's not taking up any more bandwidth than a thread of just 2 pages, unless you load everything from page 1 on before you post a reply 8-[

mickal555
2005-May-02, 08:53 PM
according to me, it's not taking up any more bandwidth than a thread of just 2 pages, unless you load everything from page 1 on before you post a reply 8-[ :lol:

Makgraf
2005-May-02, 08:55 PM
according to me, it's not taking up any more bandwidth than a thread of just 2 pages, unless you load everything from page 1 on before you post a reply 8-[
Serves me right for attempting to tart up my argument with a technical term. I'm woefully ignorant about computers as a day of trying (and failing) to hook up a router has rubbed in.

Nicolas
2005-May-02, 09:04 PM
My reasoning is: if you open the last page of the WAG, it loads only that last page -which contains less text than the average page. On the BA's disc space however, the complete WAG is stored and will take some MB's probably. But those aren't sent to the user every time he opens a certain page from the thread as afar as I know :). So unless he needs the couple of MB's (if it's that much) taken up by the WAG thread, I think there will be little advantage for the board in deleting it.

mopc
2005-May-02, 09:09 PM
No more WAG!

SeanF
2005-May-02, 09:14 PM
My reasoning is: if you open the last page of the WAG, it loads only that last page -which contains less text than the average page. On the BA's disc space however, the complete WAG is stored and will take some MB's probably. But those aren't sent to the user every time he opens a certain page from the thread as afar as I know :). So unless he needs the couple of MB's (if it's that much) taken up by the WAG thread, I think there will be little advantage for the board in deleting it.
I think the BA's whole purpose in the pruning in the first place was to free up the MBs of disk space, though. Dead threads don't contribute to bandwidth, either.

Nicolas
2005-May-02, 09:17 PM
Indeed. The pruning saved 200+ MB. I dont know how many MB's the WAG takes up, but I'd be surprised if it were more than 5 MB (I don't know how easy phpBB is on disc space :))

Normandy6644
2005-May-02, 09:24 PM
Yeah, we don't need it. Let's get more creative with our fluff! :D

mickal555
2005-May-02, 09:27 PM
Well the only space a message uses is subject and message

with ~7 letters a message and a letter= 1 byte (8 bits-eg. 01000001) 7 bytes * 23'000
=161' 0000 bytes
mega byte = 10000

161


hmmm that can't be right

Nicolas
2005-May-02, 09:29 PM
1610000 bytes is (take 1000 instead of 1024) 1610 kilobytes, or 1.61 MB.

If you had been just a few years older -really not much- you might have worked on PC's with only a few MB's of hard disk space; discs on which KB's mattered and calculating between KB and MB was a natural thing. Also with 1.44 MB discs this is standard math :). (old people: don't turn this into a "you know you're getting old when.." thread! :D ). Thanks for the calcultaion, you saved me some effort. Together we can do it :wink: .

So if this is correct, WAG will take up less than 3 MB probably.

Glom
2005-May-02, 09:35 PM
It's nearly a thousand pages long. That's one thousand pages of total crap. Regardless of whether or not people like it or not. BA should delete it. If you want to carry on, start another one, but those 1000 pages are useless and are just taking up space that BA has to find a way to pay for.

Get rid of it.

mopc
2005-May-02, 09:42 PM
It's nearly a thousand pages long. That's one thousand pages of total crap. Regardless of whether or not people like it or not. BA should delete it. If you want to carry on, start another one, but those 1000 pages are useless and are just taking up space that BA has to find a way to pay for.

Get rid of it.

But how else would people easily increase their post count, to feel important? :roll:

Lycus
2005-May-02, 09:42 PM
What about the pheonix option? Every 5 pages or so it's deleted and a new thread with the last word of the old one.
I think that's been suggested a couple times before. I'm surprised that the BA hasn't been doing that.

frogesque
2005-May-02, 09:51 PM
I kind of agree with Glom here. 1000 pages that are at most relevant for the latest couple of pages.

That said I like WAG, it's easy to relax with - especially if you have done some technical research and just want a way to lighten up. It's also a way to see how different folks' minds work so I would like like to keep it but clear it out regularly, say if it goes over 20 pages, just keep the last couple (don't know how practical that would be).

There's a lot of other 'fluff' threads that could be pruned too, Stupid Questions, Person above you, Simpsons/Red Dwarf/Discworld/Python/Name the tune/etc. I would hate to see the camraderie and character of BABB destroyed though. We have had serious discussions and some heartrending threads develop so let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Nicolas
2005-May-02, 09:54 PM
I think seeing some of the popular "fluff" threads as part of the bathwater or the baby is a matter of opinion.

Glom
2005-May-02, 09:55 PM
That said I like WAG, it's easy to relax with - especially if you have done some technical research and just want a way to lighten up. It's also a way to see how different folks' minds work so I would like like to keep it but clear it out regularly, say if it goes over 20 pages, just keep the last couple (don't know how practical that would be).

I have nothing against WAG if people want to do it, but there's no point in keeping 1000 pages of it, which no-one will ever read. It's totally redundant so I suggest restarting it and having BA delete the current behemoth.


There's a lot of other 'fluff' threads that could be pruned too, Stupid Questions, Person above you, Simpsons/Red Dwarf/Discworld/Python/Name the tune/etc. I would hate to see the camraderie and character of BABB destroyed though. We have had serious discussions and some heartrending threads develop so let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I don't think that discussions about our favourite TV programmes are fluff, so I think they should stay.

Enzp
2005-May-03, 04:35 AM
I thought it was fun, and late at night you could tell who was up and playing along. It also gives some insight into who has wit and thinks about other things than astronomy. I like to see other peoples minds at work. SOme responses were dumb, but some were pretty darn clever, I thought.

I don't care if it is fluff. There is nothing on this whole section that life would cease to exist without. Is discussing Lord of the Rings really more crucial to life than WAG?

I see no reason for a thousand pages of it either. I participate in other boards that simply have a 10,000 post limit, and the oldest threads drop off on an ongoing basis. Works for me. Keeping it to five or ten pages wouldn't clog the system and yet lets those who want it to participate in innocent fun.

Fram
2005-May-03, 07:43 AM
It will not be huge, but the size of the WAG in the database is a bit bigger than calculated here, I think.
First: with every post, the author and the date must be stored, and the options (sig on/off, ...).
Second: the whole of it is indexed, and the index goes on author as well, so every post has it's own reference and pointer. This may be done very efficient, but it will still take extra space.

It will not take 100 megabyte, but it will be more than what was said here, probably.

mickal555
2005-May-03, 07:47 AM
Yeah... #-o

Each post has a SQL table and they can have quite a bit of info

Meteora
2005-May-03, 08:13 AM
Often, I have very limited time when I peruse the BABB. I usually work my way through the forums by looking for the yellow indicators of new posts. Once I go through all the forums, I go back and look at the new posts that came in during the first perusal. It's not unusual to click on BABBling only to find the WAG showing the new post(s). The same thing happens with the SciFi quote thread. It's kind of annoying, actually. ](*,)

So, I voted to end the WAG. 8-[

I wonder if there's a poll to end the SciFi quote thread out there somewhere? :-k

WaxRubiks
2005-May-03, 08:19 AM
You could have a "War of the Worlds" game where you go through a scenario of some kind of invasion.

Rc2000
2005-May-03, 04:41 PM
Lock the old one, start a new one with the last word in the old one, then in a day or so delete the old one.
I like the game. For those of us that don't know enough to take on some of the really in depth topics that are over our heads, the WAG provides a diversion till we can add to discussions. Plus, some of the associations are a trip to read.
Like -- "How the heck did they get that from the other word?" :D

Rc

Candy
2005-May-03, 04:52 PM
Lock the old one, start a new one with the last word in the old one, then in a day or so delete the old one.
I like the game. For those of us that don't know enough to take on some of the really in depth topics that are over our heads, the WAG provides a diversion till we can add to discussions. Plus, some of the associations are a trip to read.
Like -- "How the heck did they get that from the other word?" :D

Rc
I often relate words from the BABB on the WAG. It's funny to see who is keeping up with the threads and who is not. :wink:

[Edit to add - I started including the link, too.]

WaxRubiks
2005-May-03, 04:59 PM
It surely must be possible to compile the words and then dump them all somewhere else on the site or perhaps dump them in a free website from a provider like Expresspages (which don't take long to set up)and then provide a link. This way you can keep adding to it each time and not loose anything.

Superluminal
2005-May-03, 09:52 PM
Since the WAG is approaching 1000 pages, there should be a contest. The person who makes the first post on page 1000 wins something very valuable. Like a free membership to the BABB or a date with Candy. :lol:

Glom
2005-May-03, 10:36 PM
Like a free membership to the BABB

It's already free.


or a date with Candy. :lol:

Never!

Candy
2005-May-04, 01:41 AM
http://home.att.net/~candy.stair/glom.jpg

Nicolas
2005-May-04, 12:52 PM
Since the WAG is approaching 1000 pages, there should be a contest. The person who makes the first post on page 1000 wins something very valuable. Like a free membership to the BABB or a date with Candy. :lol:

Oh please!!!

I've already got: 20.000th post, 22.222th post in WAG AND I was the first to mention 200.000th view there!! How much more before you win something here :wink: :D :D

Maha Vailo
2005-May-09, 10:32 PM
I'd say let it continue until it reaches 1000 pages, then start a new thread.

- Maha Vailo

collegeguy
2005-May-10, 12:09 AM
I voted yes. I like that thread. It was a fun game.

collegeguy
2005-May-10, 12:12 AM
I'd say let it continue until it reaches 1000 pages, then start a new thread.

- Maha Vailo

Of course, getting to 1000 pages would be a nice record. :D

pumpkinpie
2005-May-10, 01:24 PM
I vote yes restart it, but I say let it get to 1000 pages first!

WaxRubiks
2005-May-10, 02:35 PM
I vote yes restart it, but I say let it get to 1000 pages first!

then by my calculations, you've got about 30days left on the present thread.

But what will the present thread think about being deleted, could get messy.......

Rc2000
2005-May-10, 04:27 PM
I'd say let it continue until it reaches 1000 pages, then start a new thread.

- Maha Vailo

Of course, getting to 1000 pages would be a nice record. :D

hehe, you know, that sounds like a plan. 8)

Rc

Candy
2005-May-10, 04:33 PM
When my email comes, it cuts off the last part of the thread name (ociation). Cracks me up everytime someone makes a new post. :lol:

(I mean this thread.)