I'd venture to say that 90% of all BC Members have DSL/Cable. With this being said I dont see why we cant have 40 threads per page vs the normal 25, some subforums have more than 5 stickies so only the last 20 threads are displayed, with a forum as popular at BC, important topics may be missed a bit.

I know this was brought up before, but I'm just throwin in my 2 cents

Screen resolution needs to be considered also. I have my res set much higher than most and the forum is very workable.

i think upping it just a bit would be nice, but also dont want to bog down our 56K people

Leave it alone. It'* a known e-marketing technique thingy that if a page is too long, people won't read it. Which would prevent new membership.

New membership is good. I'm tired of reading the normal peoples crap....

um bill

http://www.bonnevilleclub.com/forum/...ght=resolution

1280x1024?

I'm pretty sure willwren has 1920x1200 on his "dell precision workstation wannabe that has an HP badge on it"...

Maybe 35 would be ok. Its not going to bog 56k at all. its the pictures that do that.

just make it user selectable with the default as what it is now

I agree. I'm a member at other boards where the user can make that selection in his/her profile.

Personally, I'd keep it what it is, if the option was made available. You can't go wrong with ol' reliable.

I'm totally against all change!! Change is EVIL!!! All those who initiate change are EVIL!!

Down with CHANGE!!! Down with the Revolution!!!

VIVA the sameness!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
J/K
But seriously folks, I have no problem with things just the way they are.

QFT. I have 50 PPP on another site (VBulletin) and i LOVE it, especially if you're trying to follow a topic. Text and what not isn't an issue for bandwidth capped users, it'* just different sigs/avatars etc. If the same person posts twice, you're also only loading it once.

come to think of it, I would rather have more replies/posts per page than threads per page.

again still user selectable