[arkypete]

Does my coming into the web site and reading postings contribute to the band width shortage?

Jim

 

[kdub]

Nope, Jim -

Its all the long winded postings, endless arguments about "which is better" and dragging the other poster's comments into another post for reference. Extra large pictures and lots of them also eat into the bandwidth.

 

[kludge]

Things that will help:

Link all pics (photobucket, etc.)

Only quote the section of another's post if needed for continuity, otherwise just address the person by name, or just quote the part that you are commenting on, delete the rest of their post in your quote.

 

[broom_jm]

I'd be curious to see how much bandwidth is consumed by a long-winded post (something I'm often guilty of), as compared to a short post with a large picture. The posts where a guy shows half a dozen pics and 10 people comment on them undoubtedly consume a great deal more BW than text-only strings.

That is why I copy my pics to an online sight and then post links to the URL where the picture can be viewed, if desired.

 

[Cheezywan]

I read here once that using "quick reply" helps. I do that as much as I can.

Cheezywan

 

[unclenick]

Just to get a belated answer to some of this in place:

Cutting down on the number of button pushes does reduce the number of send/receive exchanges between server and poster. Text does not consume nearly as much bandwidth as a photo as the encoding is much more compact. Look at the size of a text file sometime as compared to the size of an image file that's a picture of the same text. No comparison. A really big, long-winded post will save as a .txt file of less than !0K. An image file of the same text will be 10 times bigger in .gif format, which is pretty compact in most instances.