I can think of a way you can quadruple your available storage for PMs.
Tuba, did you just change it? My PM page now shows 500 available.
You might be correct. Or perhaps the act of changing settings in vBulletin could cause problems, which is what I had in mind. But I was only speculating.
Yes. But perhaps we might want to increase the level for paying members from 200 to some other number. Thus my inquiry upthread.
That said, I doubt whether this will end up as a money spinner.
Some math:
130,000 members * 3K per message including overhead ~=400,000K per message = 400MB per message per member.
100 messages -> 40GB. That amounts to maybe ?$0-$12/year?
Of course I doubt whether a change in policy will increase average stored messages by 100 per member.
ETA: I still have a limit of 200 PMs.
Maybe it’s been that way all along from when I was a moderator. I haven’t looked at in . . . well, ever, I guess, until today.
Well, yes, that would be the reasonable and common sense thing to do, though it is probably against the Evil Jackbooted Nazi Mod creed.
Mine shows 200 available.
-D/a
Reported. Spam?
Damn right it’s spam.
:rolleyes:
Well, there’s that. Why do I always forget to consider that?
Too bad. It’s a perfectly good solution.
Yeah, the same way a “solution” to getting better at Farmville is to buy farm cash.
How were we to know it was ours for the asking?
I mean, frankly, all of it used to be free. Once the gate came down, so to speak, we… or at least I, figured that it was a one way proposition… that you would have to pay from now on, to maintain certain aspects.
And calling this straight out : How can we even know to know it was ours for the asking when you guys are pimping out the custom title under user names, at a buck a month or whatever. — Not to hijack, but whats the house take on that one?
With respect, the board doesn’t run itself. Nor is their business model especially profitable.
ETA: Re: Meeko: “How can we even know to know it was ours for the asking when you guys are pimping out the custom title under user names, at a buck a month or whatever. — Not to hijack, but whats the house take on that one?”
I confess I don’t understand the question. The price list is posted and the underlying marginal costs are probably in the range of 2% for cc charges. I think it’s understood that users are kicking in some pesos for the cause. 
It never hurts to ask. The worst thing we can say is “No.”
People ask us about stuff all the time. Sometimes we can do and sometimes we can’t. Varies.
When we can do for the community – when resources allow, when management consents – we try to accommodate.
We’ve not always been able to do as much as we would like, mostly because of resources. While things are not perfect today, the system seems stable and has been stable for some time. It wasn’t always so.
As to why we charge for things like user titles – that’s because we get no funding from anything besides ads and subscriptions. It costs bux to keep this site up and running – all the site, not just the message board – and we need your help to keep on keeping on. Personal user titles came about because people asked for it and indicated a desire strong enough that they would pay for the privilege.
All good points. Consider myself suitably chastened 
Well good, then. My work here is done.
Nonsense. It’s simply a tiered plan. People who subscribe to the board get more benefits. If you’d like those benefits, you should subscribe.
That sounds more like a solution to the problem rather than a problem to me.
This is a possibility in the same way that turning on the radio in your car could have undesired consequences in the transmission. I know this is everyone’s go-to argument for never changing anything, but it’s especially comical in this particular case because you’re arguing that message board software may not support the storage and display of, well, messages.
The only difference between private messages and posts is that they are stored in different tables in the database. While TPTB are welcome to set whatever limits they like (and setting a small PM limit on guests isn’t a bad strategy to encourage membership purchases, although they should really vastly increase the limit for members for that to be effective), there isn’t any justification for it from a technical perspective. We’ve got 14 million posts. A few more PMs aren’t going to hurt anything.
Note: I don’t personally care at all about the PM limits. But there’s no need for mystical voodoo to justify whatever setting is chosen.