PM Storage problem

[DJKillaQueen]

Many Thanks Admin - it is very much appreciated (tu)

[Alan Medic]

I'd prefer 300 Admin please. There's far too much of this pm'ing stuff going on.

[Huguenot]

That bloody Bridge club. They've been over here. Killed the Pope as well.

I know that a few kids use the forum for everything. One well known lady poster with several usernames (;-)) seems to have a pathological aversion to Facebook and email, but finds comfort and solace in PMs.

It doesn't work well - tables like that cripple the forum.

With all respect, not due but willing, I think the forum is verging on a new incarnation with different software. We can still make it look the same.

24,000 users in one day? Phorum doesn't do that.

With the skills of an adept in proposing anathema, I now take that all back. Just floating it like.

[Otta]

I think you should put it back to 300. I am sorry, but that is more than enough for anyone, and I don't see why the forum should have to be slower for everyone just because a few people don't delete their messages. How about a sticky thread to announce you're going to do it, so that people can't complain that they had no warning (as it would seem that by giving the community a great free resource, you've become answerable to EVERYONE).

[mockney piers]

I'm with the naysayers. 300 fine by me.

[Laddy Muck]

Me too actually. As I said earlier, it really doesn't take that much effort to housekeep mailboxes. Certainly, the task is not half as daunting as running a forum!

[Sue]

Thanks admin.

I'd be happy with 300 in the longer term if that would speed up the forum, but it would be great if we could have quite a bit of warning beforehand.

Of course in theory it doesn't take much effort to delete past PMs, in practice there are often more pressing things in life :)

[Otta]

Of course in theory it doesn't take much effort to delete past PMs, in practice there are often more pressing things in life

Please don't take this personally, but surely it is up to you how you wish to prioritise your time. Why should everyone else have to put up with a slower forum, until you decide that you can spare half hour to clean up your inbox?

Not meaning to be mean, but that would be my opinion on it.

[Sue]

Otta Wrote:

-

>

> Please don't take this personally, but surely it

> is up to you how you wish to prioritise your time.

> Why should everyone else have to put up with a

> slower forum, until you decide that you can spare

> half hour to clean up your inbox?

>

> Not meaning to be mean, but that would be my

> opinion on it.

xxxxxx

Well yes, actually that does sound mean, given the whole of the previous discussion on the thread.

[Otta]

Well I'm a meanie then >:D

[Alan Medic]

...............like posting on the forum. That was number 7,184 Sue and counting!

[DJKillaQueen]

Oooh you should see my footie ladies when they get into a pm conversation....easily can surpas 150 pms in a day lol.

Seriously though....any limit that admin deems necessary is fine. People just need a warning period so that those who haven't been keeping on top of their inboxes can adjust.

[Sue]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...............like posting on the forum. That was

> number 7,184 Sue and counting!

xxxxx

Crikey, you've obviously got time to spare as well then.

I've been on the forum for at least three years, I'm now retired, and I was also ill for a long time last year, so yes I have had time to post a lot.

Which still doesn't mean, given all the other things I have going on, that sorting out PMs has in the past been anywhere near top of my list of priorities :))