Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

WHY have you got rid of All On One Page?

480 replies

Pascha · 10/12/2013 20:18

I HATE pages.

Please give them back!

OP posts:
Maryz · 11/12/2013 18:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

myBOYSareBONKERS · 11/12/2013 18:17

I HAVE A PROBLEM>>>>>>> HHHHEEEELLLPPPPPP MMMMEEEEE.....

Have I got your attention?

When I am on my android and I want to read the latest posts in "threads I am watching" - previously when I clicked on the posters name it would take me to their post. Now it takes me to the start of the whole thread again - which is very annoying as some are very long.

CarpeVinum · 11/12/2013 18:19

**

No fair taking advantage of number typos !

Maryz · 11/12/2013 18:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

OvO · 11/12/2013 18:20

As a non tetchy person who doesn't actually really know what a server is can I suggest if you've made this change because of some server issue then just get some chuffing bigger/better servers. Rather than pissing about with pages and taking away something that actually an awful lot of people like.

Maryz · 11/12/2013 18:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MrPoppy · 11/12/2013 18:21

The option of going to page 2 from active convos mightn't help me much - once the thread is between 400-600 I won't remember which page I want. It's probably okay if you're here checking updates everyday.

Is it not the moving adverts that cause the slow loading?

OvO · 11/12/2013 18:21

Haha, non TECHY. I'm definitely tetchy. Xmas Grin

CarpeVinum · 11/12/2013 18:27

Imagine trying to have a proper bunfight on a thread limited to 100 posts?

1000! Not 100.

I did edit under but Rowen took advantage !

But really threads were limited to a 1000 becuase of the "show all threads" option. More than a 1000 and it wnet ...wonky or something. I am sure that is the readon given.

So if the top whack is 500 per page, there is no need for the 1000 limit anymore.

In order to prevent raging on beyond all reasonablness becuase there is abosutly nothing left to say, and to make sure fresh blood can come into quiche threads without feeling the need to slog through squillions of previous posts the new limit could be a 2000 with a view to review it up or down if unexpected consequences happen.

BoreOfWhabylon · 11/12/2013 18:41

I do not like pages AT ALL. Like Maryz and others I like to have the whole thread open so that I can skip up and down it. This cannot be done on two, three or more pages.

If we cannot have 1000 posts on one page back, then I would prefer thread limit to be 500 posts, just as long as they can be ALL ON ONE PAGE.

Ithangyew

Huitre · 11/12/2013 18:49

I love you, myBOYSareBONKERS!

Thank God! It's not just me. See, Rowan/Tech?!

Huitre · 11/12/2013 18:49

Also, thanks for the heads up, Maryz!

evilgiraffe · 11/12/2013 19:01

I concur with several previous posters - limiting threads to 500 (or 750, or something that is not so hard on the servers) posts would be infinitely preferable to being forced into having pages.

Huitre · 11/12/2013 19:02

It's working, it's working! YAY!

One thing to consider, Tech and MNHQ, if you do split threads into pages of 500 posts, you may find people actually using more bandwidth as they switch back and forth between the pages.

TheSkiingGardener · 11/12/2013 19:13

Just going to go against the grain and say I think that limiting viewable posts to 500 is fine. A small % of threads go over that, and there's nothing to stop people having page 1 open in 1 window and page 2 in another. I use the mobile site, not the app and find pages no bother.

Alternatively, how about a special quiche section with 2000 posts per thread, all viewable on 1 page and then limit everywhere else to 500 posts. If it's over 500 posts it's often a bunfight anyway.

MrPoppy · 11/12/2013 19:21

I'm thinking that if the adverts are starting to impact on our enjoyment of the site, by giving us an ultimatum to reduce thread length or have pages then it's time to rethink the ads.
I'm on muted, so I'd really rather not have them anyway (particularly moving, blinking ones).

GodRestTEEMerryGenTEEmen · 11/12/2013 19:33

It does seem to me, based on no scientific or server time evidence at all, that most of the site slowness started when they began having moving GIF adverts.

I have actually gone back to hiding adverts after a car one nearly blinded me with it's headlights flashing at me.

But I know they are still there, slowing everything down.

MrPoppy · 11/12/2013 19:50

You can hide them?
Do I look in customise for that?

GodRestTEEMerryGenTEEmen · 11/12/2013 19:53

No, I do that with AdBlock for Chrome or Firefox.

MrPoppy · 11/12/2013 19:57

Oh. I'll have a look into what I can do with safari.
I was kicking myself for a minute then that I could've just unticked a box in customise ages ago.

evilgiraffe · 11/12/2013 20:09

If you find a way to block ads in safari/iPad, Poppy, do tell! I hate ads, and moving ads in particular.

Trills · 11/12/2013 20:16

Good luck

myBOYSareBONKERS · 11/12/2013 20:16

I love you, myBOYSareBONKERS! Xmas Shock I'm a married woman!! Xmas Wink

Huitre · 11/12/2013 20:46

It's all right, so am I!

BeyondTheLimitsOfXmasability · 11/12/2013 21:33

I don't seem to have moving ads on mine (safari/ipad) though I don't think I've done anything? Will investigate...