It sounds like a kludgy workaround to me rather than a reasonable solution. It makes sense to keep all of the messages in the same place and accessible with ease. Proposing that the user handle archiving and storage does not strike me as a good plan. Giraffe makes a great point that storing and retrieving text data is the most basic function of any message board software. The increase in needed storage is a pittance compared to the vast amount of posts, not to mention most of the people here have admitted they would not make use of the increased limit. What the objection then? The few people that want to will utilize it, while the vast majority’s storage needs will remain the same. For a site that claims to fight ignorance, you guys sure make a lot of appeals to ignorance when considering making even the most basic changes to the forum.
The only reason that there isn’t a higher limit is because the management here doesn’t want there to be one. Making the change is trivial and there is no technical reason why the software or the servers couldn’t handle the increase. It should be noted that no one on the Staff here claimed that there was a technical issue, that was just silly speculation by a few members.
Here is your answer:
This discussion may spark some change and I hope it does. I don’t personally need more room but it will probably spark a bunch of people to upgrade with no more work for the Staff and no effect on board performance. Win-win.
It’s really not that big a deal, although it would be nice for the board to move to the 21st century. You can save your messages, or you can disable your PM box and get a SDMB only email.
Oh, and there are not very many perks of being a member, so message storage is probably a pretty significant one. Unless you could the satisfaction of giving money to a board you love as a benefit–I don’t. Then again, I clearly don’t find membership that appealing anyways.
Even all of my previous memberships were gifts.
I think the board should disable PM entirely. What’s wrong with email?
Do you only have one email address? I could come up with a dope-only email, but that’s more work than using the messaging system built into the board.
There are Dopers I want to communicate with without giving access to my RL info. PMs let me do that.
I agree it’s more work, but I’m just saying it’s not as big a deal as the OP was making it out to be.
And, anyways, you can set up the new account to forward to your normal email, or, if you have Gmail or similar, have your account automatically check your other accounts. I have about four accounts now, and I can check them all in one place. (All but two are for YouTube use).
This post by TubaDiva seems to at least imply that changing the PM limit could adversely affect the board stability:
What I take from this is a sort of “don’t upset the apple cart” mentality that I often see from the board administration and their fervent supporters.
I hope so too. I don’t see any good reason to cap it at 200 for paying members. The marginal increase in load on the board is completely covered by the membership fee, and Lynn’s claim that the board is not an email service is irrelevant. Honestly, the benefit of being a paying member is pretty damn thin besides some “feel good” points for supporting the board; the least they could do is offer a reasonable PM limit given the lack of technical difficulty in doing so.
That’s fine by me. It won’t increase the limits for Trepa Mayfield, or the OP, or, for that matter, you.
Poor banned crumpet. Tea’s just not the same.
Whoa! When that’d happen?
Sometime between his last post and 9:14am the same day (so about a two hour window). I’ve been looking for a ATMB note, but my curiosity is not strong enough to bug the mods.
I don’t really care about the PM issue personally, I am more commenting on the general “backwardness” of the board compared with other forums, be it on technical issues or overall functionality. The resistance to change is amazing.
I think this place is about speaking out loud (as it were) to the community, not having little side conversations one on one. Anything that makes it easier to do that latter would be a negative, as far as I’m concerned. Having a limited and very slightly awkward PM functionality to permit PM use where absolutely necessary but discourage it generally would be perfect.
I somewhat agree with this. But my take on it is that I don’t want to be bothered with private correspondence (thus I have PMs turned off and even my throw away email is hidden). I don’t care if other people do so among themselves.
His/her last replies in this thread seem reasonable. Maybe the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Crumpets petitioned the board management?
Quoting from the FAQ: FAQ - Rules for Posting at the Straight Dope Message Boards - About This Message Board - Straight Dope Message Board
You are welcome to inquire via email or PM to a moderator or administrator if you require further information.
I just went and looked and it seems I am allowed 500 PMs. I guess I got upgraded for being so awesome.
You, and all other members – 500 is now the limit for members. The new limit for guests is 250.
You’re welcome.
“Whoo-hoo, I’m PMing like a motherfucker!” 