CT's Most Excellent Workbench Adventure

[cputnam]

pampine said:

---

There are usually costs associated with massive storage.

Pam

---

Usually. But with Evernote, thus far there have been no costs.

[pampine]

cputnam said:

---

[blockquote]pampine said:

---

There are usually costs associated with massive storage.

Pam

---

Usually. But with Evernote, thus far there have been no costs.

---

[/blockquote]

Not disputing that at all. I was talking about the apparent reluctance of the forum to hold big archives; even though it's a little disconcerting to know threads disappear after a year.

Pam

[Skip J.]

pampine said:

---

Not disputing that at all. I was talking about the apparent reluctance of the forum to hold big archives; even though it's a little disconcerting to know threads disappear after a year.
Pam

---

Hi Pam;

This thread being an excellent example, what we do is what you see here, somebody will decide a thread is a keeper and mark it as a "favorite thread" so it is always on their own forum home page. Then they will check back on it from time to time and when a year is about up, bump it back to life..

It is really not a problem... and the 99.9% of also-rans are not cluttering up anybody's 'puter... and I will say again, I would be amazed if this thread was not already archived on Cian's 'puter... as are most of the older "important" threads...

[stl_6string]

Life is funny. I have been away from this forum for YEARS.... I haven't read or posted anything on this site for a very long time. I searched through my memory bank to remember my password, popped onto the hand tool forum and this thread is still active after all these years. Crazy... I really enjoyed seeing the pictures of the progress, again...

[Wilbur Pan]

pampine said:

---

Not disputing that at all. I was talking about the apparent reluctance of the forum to hold big archives; even though it's a little disconcerting to know threads disappear after a year.

Pam

---

Given that this forum doesn’t host media (all pictures need to be linked to another service where they are hosted, like Picasa, Flickr, or, God forbid, Photobucket), that means that the forum database is pretty much text. So unless the forum is running off of 1990’s-era hard drives, storage space should be cheap enough to archive threads for more than a year.

[kompera]

Wilbur Pan said:

---

[blockquote]pampine said:

---

Not disputing that at all. I was talking about the apparent reluctance of the forum to hold big archives; even though it's a little disconcerting to know threads disappear after a year.

Pam

---

Given that this forum doesn’t host media (all pictures need to be linked to another service where they are hosted, like Picasa, Flickr, or, God forbid, Photobucket), that means that the forum database is pretty much text. So unless the forum is running off of 1990’s-era hard drives, storage space should be cheap enough to archive threads for more than a year.

---

[/blockquote]

Seconded. Heck, I'll even buy the drives if that's all they need.
Never understood the 1yr expiration.

[doobes]

kompera said:

---

[blockquote]Wilbur Pan said:

---

[blockquote]pampine said:

---

Not disputing that at all. I was talking about the apparent reluctance of the forum to hold big archives; even though it's a little disconcerting to know threads disappear after a year.

Pam

---

Given that this forum doesn’t host media (all pictures need to be linked to another service where they are hosted, like Picasa, Flickr, or, God forbid, Photobucket), that means that the forum database is pretty much text. So unless the forum is running off of 1990’s-era hard drives, storage space should be cheap enough to archive threads for more than a year.

---

[/blockquote]

Seconded. Heck, I'll even buy the drives if that's all they need.
Never understood the 1yr expiration.

---

[/blockquote]

Ditto.

I can't help but think of all the content that has been lost with the ridiculous 1 year expiration....

[Steve N]

doobes said:

---

[blockquote]kompera said:

---

[blockquote]Wilbur Pan said:

---

[blockquote]pampine said:

---

Not disputing that at all. I was talking about the apparent reluctance of the forum to hold big archives; even though it's a little disconcerting to know threads disappear after a year.

Pam

---

Given that this forum doesn’t host media (all pictures need to be linked to another service where they are hosted, like Picasa, Flickr, or, God forbid, Photobucket), that means that the forum database is pretty much text. So unless the forum is running off of 1990’s-era hard drives, storage space should be cheap enough to archive threads for more than a year.

---

[/blockquote]

Seconded. Heck, I'll even buy the drives if that's all they need.
Never understood the 1yr expiration.

---

[/blockquote]

Ditto.

I can't help but think of all the content that has been lost with the ridiculous 1 year expiration....

---

[/blockquote]


Probably just more of a maintenance head ache. So far no one has gotten the ban hammer for bumpin stuff into eternity

Their sandbox, their rules.

[EricU]

forum software is usually organized as a database, so the bigger it is, the worse the performance. This forum seems a little draconian about deleting old threads, but it's not a horrible idea. Another forum I'm active on keeps everything, but people hate responding to old threads and then realizing the issue in the first post was answered years ago.

[iclark]

Time to bump this one again.

Beautiful bench build with lots of lessons-learned and contributions from others.