Trimming down the bulk - Proposed topics to be deleted

At the below link, there is a list of 90 topics that I am proposing be deleted from the various forums. The reason for these deletions is to cut down on the server storage requirements (for which "Admin" is paying the bills).Proposed Forum Topics To Be DeletedThere will be more topics proposed further down the line, but this is the beginning.Essentially, in the database, I flagged many topics as candidates for deletion.Then, in general, I filtered for those topics that have had no messages posted from 4/1/02 on.For the "Announcements" and "Suggestions" forums, the topics were filtered for those having had no messages posted from 11/1/02 on.Other certain topics were also specially selected, to be on the list (ie. I picked on minnemooseus topics a bit extra).I plan on making personal copies of all topics, before they are deleted. Others are certainly invited to do the same.Objections to specific topics being deleted may be addressed by:
1) Reactivating the topic by posting new messages to it.
2) Commenting in this topic.
or
3) Contacting Adminnemooseus at the below e-mail address.As I see it, it will be at least a week before I starting deleting anything. Warning, at this topic, will be issued when the deletions are eminent.OK, let's see what happens.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-18-2003]

quote:

---

The reason for these deletions is to cut down on the server storage requirements (for which "Admin" is paying the bills).

---

My understanding, from e-mail communications from "Admin" (aka Percy), was that he wished to explore methods of keeping site costs under control. As I understand the situation, the volume of the sites server storage requirements is such that "Admin" is now paying extra to maintain the site.All administrative parties find it distasteful, to do any deletion of content. The question is, is it needed, to keep cost considerations practical.I'm not the one paying the bills. Only "Admin" is paying the bills. I await input from "Admin" on this matter.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

BUMP

quote:

---

Only "Admin" is paying the bills. I await input from "Admin" on this matter.

---

Admin, your thoughts?Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

Of the initial 90 topics proposed for deletion, there are a total of 383 messages, or an average of 4.25 per topic. 23 topics have only 1 message. 86 of the topics are a single page, and the other 4 only go 2 pages. One of the 2 pagers is wmscott's "Book Nook" topic, which lives on in it's entirity, in another forum.As all the topics are quite short, they are easily saved in a non-zipped form (besides, I don't offhand know how to go about zipping and posting them). I will try to compile a listing of links, for easy access and saving of the topics.Nothing is yet eminent, but I expect that I would start with the "Announcements" topics. I have already saved them all to my hard drive, a process that took, as I recall, only 15 minutes or less.I expect that all the "Announcements" and "Suggestions" would survive online, in a more condenced form. That should save storage space, and also make the information more accessable (you'd only have to deal with one topic for each forum).Added by edit: The "Announcements" topics, at Proposed Forum Topics To Be Deleted, are now clickable links.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-21-2003]

You know, the 90 proposed deletions is looking like trying to bail the Titanic with a leaky bucket (see http://EvC Forum: Site Usage -->EvC Forum: Site Usage).By the way, the sometimes excesive use of the "quote reply" function is starting to piss me off. There's no calling for quoting the (possibly long) numericly previous message (you can usually scroll just up the page to see it). Quoting excesses are probibly taking up significant amounts of storage space.And people, try to get the quote structures (UBB code) right in your messages. This also ties into the use of the "quote reply" function.Lastly, I've deleted the "Free For All" porn spam topic (camsrock69's "my cam site"). Probibly should have banned the poster also, but I guess I needed to do that before wiping out the offending topic.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-21-2003]

The only thing I did was to complete the "quote reply" business page processing. No topics or messages were deleted (at least not by me, on purpose). Will investigate further.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

Quick comments.I wouldn't think that the "reply quote" icon thing should make a difference. As I understand it, the support graphics are not stored with the individual pages, rather are imported when the page file is downloaded.As per TC's idea, I've been doing some trials with zipping files. I downloaded and saved the 31 pages of part 1 of William Scott's flood topic (and if we're going to make a dent in the storage demands, at least some of those big topics are going to have to take a hit - the 1 Scott topic is much larger than the total of the 90 on my proposed list).Anyhow, the 31 pages, without any of the support graphics, totaled to 3,572,152 bytes. Zipped, they totaled to 712,191 bytes, which is 20% of the bigger number.I don't think the support graphics are really that important in an archived version. All the text information is there, the page just doesn't look as pretty. The one catch is that any graphics imbedded withing the individual messages will also be lost. Or I can include the graphics in the zipped files, but that would probably about double the files sizes. There may, however, be a problem getting things to link up correctly. ps: Those various graphic, that you have stored for import into the messages are probably a significant storage sum in themselves - for example, the diatom photos in the William Scott topics.I think what we'll need to do, is to use the archive facility of the UBB, but instead of archiving the pages, archive a topic title with a link to the zipped file. I will post a copy of the zipped file, at my personal web site, and start a "Short Term Topic" with a link, but it will be a while yet. Maybe later tonight.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

Maybe we should disable all the reply buttons?Adminnemooseus"Programing shouldn't interfere with good equipment maintenance" - A radio engineering friend of mine

The previously proposed deletion list was based on the idea that those topics were destined for on-line oblivion (any archiving being off-line only). With the advancement of the idea of an on-line zipped archive, that has all changed.Now, I am proposing that the topic database be filtered as follows, to select the topics destined for zipped on-line archiving (and deletion from the standard list of available topics):1) All topics which have not been active since before 9/1/02.2) All currently closed topics, regardless of recent activity.3) All topics with 200 or more messages, regardless of existing status.4) All the topics that are on my previous list of proposed topics, plus some that just missed make the list of "the doomed 90".Running this filter on the database results in:516 (of 994) topics proposed for archiving.
15,695 (of 30,475) messages proposed for archiving.In a trial of zipping the first William Scott flood topic, I found that the zipped version of the 31 pages were of a file size 20 percent of the sum of the unzipped pages. Therefore, I am estimating that the new message space created would be - 15,695 x 80% = 12,556 messages.So far this year, new messages are being posted at a rate of about 80 per day, or 2400 per 30 day month.The bottom line is, I have calculated that the proposed archiving should make room for about 5 to 6 months worth of new messages, before we're up to the same as current amount of server storage space requirements.As a footnote, I add that there could be other advantages:1) The zipped file format would enable the easy downloading of a lot of material. Although the choice of preferred zipped file size is still to be determined - the William Scott example, by itself, was 696 kB. I would certainly accept suggestions for a general file size target. I anticipate that most of the zipped files would contain quite a few topics.2) I am thinking of grouping topics into ones of like nature. This would include filing the "Great Debate" topics into more appropriate forums, and also filing other topics into more appropriate forums. There may well be sub-areas within the larger areas (i.e. "Geology and the Great Flood - TB's crackpot ideas", "Evolution - SLPx's cranky themes", and "Misc. - Brad McFall's topics" - Guess which one(s) of these I'm seriously considering, if not as titled). I will need to have an index page, to tell where to find a specific topic.The following are links to:1) Topics proposed for archiving - http://www.lakenet.com/~mnmoose/archive.htm2) Topics not to be archived - to remain as is - http://www.lakenet.com/~mnmoose/not_arch.htmFuture editions of list 1 will (hopefully) include proposed topics groupings.Suggestions can be made, for topics that should cross over from one list to the other. Also, there are several active topics that are flagged for strong consideration for closing (and thus for archiving).Enough for now,Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-31-2003]