PM madness..

[steve]

Why are PM's limited to 70? and why can't we have more than 2500 characters in a PM?

I mean, we've had 3 QUARTERS OF A MILLION POSTS on this forum, yet somebody is concerned about the disk space that PMs take up?

??


That is just silly.

(Yeah, I'm sure this has been posted before, but I wouldn't want to waste TGR's precious CPU time with a search.)

-steve

[Squatch]

i think they want us to air our grievances publicly. or something like that.


(edit: what a worthless 1,000th post)

[mtnbikerskierchick]

The limit of 70 messages doesn't bother me nearly as much as the length limits. Very often I find myself having to write 2 PM's just to get my full message in!

[mtnbikerskierchick]

What is email?

[steve]

How about the diskspace that has been taken up in the public forums by members requesting others to clean their inboxes, and other members responding to them? Not to mention it increases the presence of non-SR threads...

I'm telling you, it's just backwards and silly.

[steve]

The limit of 70 messages doesn't bother me nearly as much as the length limits. Very often I find myself having to write 2 PM's just to get my full message in!

ironically, that gets you closer to your 70-message limit much faster.

[leroy jenkins]

I hear ya on the size limit, but why the hell do you need to save 70 messages?

[steve]

the same reason we save 188,812 messages in threads that haven't been active for a year.


70 is really low for a message board. Even alpinezone, which catches so much shit for overmoderation, allows 500.

[pechelman]

I think gapicski has a 25 message limit.

[Rontele]

I think gapicski has a 25 message limit.

Why do you know that? I am here to post in this important thread. How are the rockets Phil? You know my birthday is November and err I have always wanted my own Atlas Rocket.

[cj001f]

the same reason we save 188,812 messages in threads that haven't been active for a year.


70 is really low for a message board.

So download them as a text file and save them on your computer...

[steve]

So download them as a text file and save them on your computer...

It's a lot less time consuming to save them here. The point is that the disk space required is negligable. What's so hard about bumping the limit?

[pechelman]

Why do you know that? I am here to post in this important thread. How are the rockets Phil? You know my birthday is November and err I have always wanted my own Atlas Rocket.

ha, theyre um, doing fine
unless I magically get an $70,000,000 raise soon, I wont be able to afford it for ya.

fyi we're having an open house soon if you wanna check them out.
pm if youre interested

[frozenwater]

It's a lot less time consuming to save them here. The point is that the disk space required is negligable. What's so hard about bumping the limit?

Mainly because I don't know how to bump the limit. If I did I DEFINATELY would allow myself more than 70.

[Squatch]

froz, just make some aliases

[upallnight]

I think bumping the limit would be great, but I think that it just means I'll be less diligent about deleting items and then, yet again, will hit be up against the new limit. It just means I'll delay longer to get up to, say, 150 messages before cleaning up...and even then I will only delete a few so I'll quickly hit the limit.

Unless you effectively remove the limit, all an increase does is delay the inevitable.

[The Dad]

Mainly because I don't know how to bump the limit. If I did I DEFINATELY would allow myself more than 70.

According to the vbulletin site, Usergroups -> Usergroups Manager ->, then edit the group you want to, and go to Private Message Permissions

[flatNshallow]

download?

[BobMc]

While we're at it, do you think Frozen could actually come to my house and save my PMs as text files? It'd make my life a lot easier, to say nothing of the excitement it would bring me.

Thanks for considering this,

BobMc

[steve]

I think bumping the limit would be great, but I think that it just means I'll be less diligent about deleting items and then, yet again, will hit be up against the new limit. It just means I'll delay longer to get up to, say, 150 messages before cleaning up...and even then I will only delete a few so I'll quickly hit the limit.

Unless you effectively remove the limit, all an increase does is delay the inevitable.

That isn't as true as you think. Yes, some people will still hit the limit, but a large limit makes it a lot easier to pick and choose which ones you don't want/need anymore.

But this is the key - you don't have to shrink it down as often - and if it takes you a whole year to fill up the box anyway, you're more likely to proactively trim the box (heh) in that year than if you had to do it every other month (as I do..)

[upallnight]

That isn't as true as you think. Yes, some people will still hit the limit, but a large limit makes it a lot easier to pick and choose which ones you don't want/need anymore.

But this is the key - you don't have to shrink it down as often - and if it takes you a whole year to fill up the box anyway, you're more likely to proactively trim the box (heh) in that year than if you had to do it every other month (as I do..)

I've definitely not found that to be the case with Outlook. When my company imposed a 50MB limit, folks used to complain about it (me included). My company eventually bumped the limit to 150MB. It's just as a big a nuisance, but it did shut everyone up for 6mo - 1yr. My inbox is still maxed out, and I have just as many situations where I need to clear it out because I can no longer get any messages. Most folks I know get the warning messages, then clear out 5-10MB....then it fills back up.

The absolute amount we clear out is the same -- and actually the relative amount we clear out (as a % of total size) is lower.

It's fundamentally a failure to manage one's inbox (me included). I don't think the tendency to "proactively" clear the box is any greater, as it's really more dependent upon the nature of the individual rather than the system limit.

Just my $0.02.

For what it's worth, I'd like a bigger limit, but I'm sure I'll bump up against that, too.

[The Dad]

The problem is, the formats that you can download the messages in suck donkey -- none of them preserve formatting on my machine. Well, maybe XML does, but i don't know what viewer to use for that, because Firefox and IE just show the code and complain that it doesn't have any associated style information.

[Woodsy]

While we're at it, do you think Frozen could actually come to my house and save my PMs as text files? It'd make my life a lot easier, to say nothing of the excitement it would bring me.

Thanks for considering this,

BobMc

oh jeez,
would you two just get a room...
oh shit, nevermind, dont do that

[steve]

I've definitely not found that to be the case with Outlook. When my company imposed a 50MB limit, folks used to complain about it (me included). My company eventually bumped the limit to 150MB. It's just as a big a nuisance, but it did shut everyone up for 6mo - 1yr. My inbox is still maxed out, and I have just as many situations where I need to clear it out because I can no longer get any messages. Most folks I know get the warning messages, then clear out 5-10MB....then it fills back up.

The absolute amount we clear out is the same -- and actually the relative amount we clear out (as a % of total size) is lower.

It's fundamentally a failure to manage one's inbox (me included). I don't think the tendency to "proactively" clear the box is any greater, as it's really more dependent upon the nature of the individual rather than the system limit.

Just my $0.02.

For what it's worth, I'd like a bigger limit, but I'm sure I'll bump up against that, too.

I guess you and I have different PM habits..
That's cool.. but I'd still like a larger limit.

[Nohillsnearby]

Y'all should be happy you get lots of PM's. :::looking at my lonely ol' PM box:::