Is 51 the max no of 'threads I'm on' that can be shown?

[CantSleepWontSleep]

Have noticed that no matter how many extra threads I post on, my thread count remains at 51, and the oldest (though only a couple of days old and I have it set to show 5 days) drops off each time I add a new one.

It's rather annoying, as it means that I sometimes miss further discussion on threads that I'm interested in.

Is this intentional?

go to customise talk board, and you can set the no of threads you want

No tissy - you can set the no of 'active convos' that you see that way, or the number of days of 'threads I'm on' that you see.

My 'threads I'm on' is set to 5 days, but it isn't showing me 5 days' worth, as it is cutting off at 51.

you are on over 51 threads in 5 days?
10 plus a day? ummm

I'm on over 51 in 3 days, as that's as far back as they are showing at the moment!

It's called 'being a regular' .

(In truth, dd has had D&V bug, so we haven't been out as much as usual).

Are tech all having a weekend off?!

I thought it only ever did the last 3 days worth. I suppose in theory there could be a limit as to how many results are shown, but why 51... perhaps it's the last 50 threads but is including thread count 0 (0 to 50 is 51 in total).

The default was 3 days nn, but you can set it to longer since they made all the format changes last year.

It's not even giving me a full 3 days though.

That may well be why it's 51, but why?!

Hopefully tech will be back on duty tomorrow to put me out of my misery.

Tech has gone

As in the tech we all know and love as gone.

Yes yes, I know that sms, but there are lots of new techs instead.

I know but I felt the need to mourn.....

...the name tech should be sacred, and should only refer to the original tech

We are allowed time off you know

The answer is... dunno. I'll ask senior Tech tomorrow. It looks like 51 is the max, that's what I have as well.

Allowed time off? Do we not live in a democracy? I don't remember voting.

51 is the maximum and isn't something that can be changed on a per user basis.

Why 51? Well, if you're asking why 51 and not 50, the answer is, it looks like a mistake - probably a case of someone forgetting that things often get stored starting from zero rather than from one, so if you put a limit of 50 you end up with 51 things.

And if you're asking why have a limit at all, its because retrieving lots of threads is quite expensive computationally (non-tech translation: it takes a lot of computer oomph) so there needs to be some limit. 50 is a bit arbitrary but it seems like a reasonable number. It's not such a big deal with "Threads I'm On" but the same bit of the system does Active Conversations and that definitely needs a modest limit because it gets used all the time.

But you can have a maximum of 100 in active convos, so why not bump up the "Threads i'm on" to 100, so as CSWS doesn't moan - or not about that anyway

Cheeky .

hang on..

a) tech has gone? I didn't know this
b) Justine if you post that profoundly you must have another name!

Just that I never see Justine post that much so assumed that maybe she has another posting name.. that's all.. nothing outragous..

But Justine hasn't posted here, only Jane!

yep lol.. I just obviously J**... something and thought Justine. but yes you and you obviously do have another posting name lol.. see I didn't know you worked for MN either... so many changes

A worthwhile job in itself!

Hi Jane