The code can eat at least a whole core for 2 to 5 seconds per page-load. The result is almost claustrophobic unless you're used to dial-up speeds.
This "feature" should be pulled until it can be fixed. It's pretty embarrasing.
Printable View
The code can eat at least a whole core for 2 to 5 seconds per page-load. The result is almost claustrophobic unless you're used to dial-up speeds.
This "feature" should be pulled until it can be fixed. It's pretty embarrasing.
Hey,
Could this be a geographical location based issue (I have no basis for this thought, just putting it out there).
It would seem to be the case that even people with the same browsers are seeing differences in performance of the site.
As I said, I personally have seen no issues, apart from a delay in the the flyout actually opening with it's content.
Gary
Wow! Disabling Javascript gets rid of those ad words but doing that disables the useful forum features. Pity, there is no per click function that allows you only to execute the javascript behind the link or button you click on. The whole world has gone advertisement mad!
TG, I just tried using new Opera 10.51 and VBF loads pretty fast but very strange: there are no delays while page is still loading.Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
Give it the try.
RB - thanks.... I've switched to Chrome for my VBF viewing at home... so far, so good. delays are minimal and are in line with what I would expect, even with the smart tag ads coming through (about 10% of the time - the other 90 I get no tags and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to them showing vs not showing).
-tg
I am using Opera (since 2005 actually) and I don't notice a delay in loading the page, its just that it gets stuck a few seconds when I hover above those ad words.
Boops
Great solution. Does something similar exist for IE?
Spoo
Does that plugin affect other javascripts (eg those needed for validation)?Quote:
Originally Posted by boops boops
It lets you selectively allow and disallow scripts from various sources - see menu below.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightwalker83
I have now noticed that a few forum functions don't work when vbforums.com is disallowed, for example the Thread Tools drop down menu. But it's easy to click the "temporarily allow" option to activate everything. I prefer that to the popups constantly getting in the way.
BB
I practically never use IE so I didn't know that. But here's an article comparing FireFox+NoScript to IE8's script blocking capacities. It looks like IE8 won't help with the popup problem, but maybe someone else could confirm that. BBQuote:
Originally Posted by Spoo
BB
I'm afraid not - pLugins are only workarounds that most often break something else... Solution has to come from those maintaining this site.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoo
Few former colleagues of mine whom I introduced vbf few years ago said they won't come back until links removed or at least delays are gone.
All I could say was "sorry to hear that"... :ehh:
Rhino
OK, thanks for that.
Sadly, I'm in that same boat -- I have significantly reduced my
visits to the VBForums site owing to the delays.
Spoo
BB
Thanks for the link to the article. Will read it when
I need to take a break.
Spoo
Cool! I just installed the plug-in.Quote:
Originally Posted by boops boops
I disagree, in Firefox, there are several plugins that allow me to control most of the crap on the Internet.
- NoScript
- Cookie Safe
- ADP
- And if all those fail, Greasemonkey.
I have said it before and I will say it again. The ads on this site are a disgrace, they dregrade the high quality of the content that the members post and they are implemented in a slapdash and covert fashion. Its not only the ads either, there are a whole host of scripts and coookies that run entirely for the purposes of tracking, watching and building up statistics; this makes things even slower.
I would add FlashBlock to that list. It doesn't stop you watching Flash movies, but you click an arrow for them to start. That way you can skip all kinds of timewasting or distracting junk.Quote:
Originally Posted by visualAd
It suspect the reason IE doesn't support this kind of addon is that Microsoft is, like many other corporations, keen to win as large a share as possible of the Internet advertising market. That is what the Browser Wars have been about, after all. MS is less likely to allow options that stop users from being exposed to ads. I'm not sure if Mozilla Inc. is really noncommercial, but at least FireFox comes from another direction.
I suppose we are stuck with advertising. Personally I don't mind ads when they don't get in the way of content -- when they don't occupy too much of the screen, and they don't jiggle about constantly trying to grab the eye.
From this point of view, AdWords must be just about the worst idea ever. Most of the time the popups are unrelated to the highlighted words in any meaningful way, let alone to what people are likely to want. The result is much like spam: annoy a million people in the hope of catching the interest of one. It wouldn't surprise me if nothing has ever been sold as a result.
BB
I will be forced to run away from VBF if in the next day I cannot find a way to get rid of this on my browsers. Admin can ban me so it won't waste my time.
That script eats up to much time on loading, in some cases upto 10 seconds (particularly on threads with many posts) and then the warning message of FF or IE.
Only people with a very fast internet access and/or a very fast PC will not feel much of the pain.
Very annoyed. I don't think anyone will bother to read the pop-ups box when accidentally hover the mouse over the double underline keywords but just say StrReverse("!tihs") then close it and then raise the level of hate to internet.com in his heart.
A StrReverse("Diputs") adds!
So you would prefer the site were not here at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by visualAd
JP
I don't think visualAd would prefer that, and I certainly would not
prefer that, but really...
How much revenue is being generated by this new set of ads?
I would imagine that the number is close to zero.
Hopefully it is just an experiment that will be discontinued soon.
And by soon, I mean before we lose people like anhn.
Spoo
No... I don't think any one is saying that... I think what we're looking for is some consideration when making the site difficult to use. There's a script that's running as the page finishes its loading that causes the browser to lock up, and spike the CPU usage. Don't know if it's an ad, or if it's the adwords. It just seems coincidental that the problem started when the adwords showed up... so we're left to conclude that it's the adword script that's causing issues. The other issue that people seem to have is the ads have nothing to do with the words being highlighted. What does "internet" have to do with VS2010? Besides that I can download it over the internet. It would also be nice if they could be kept out of code blocks. I had an issue last night where I was trying to copy some code, and couldn't because several of the words in the code were ads, and when I was trying to get to the part I wanted to copy, the dang blasted ads kept popping up. If the ads are going to be kept, fine, but some one needs to do some debugging and some performance checks on the script that's running. There's a couple of threads, that cause the script to go nuts, forcing the browser to ask me if I want to terminate the script. That's bad.
-tg
So are you saying that VBF cannot exist without these new ads? How did it manage to do so for years without them?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPnyc
I found a way to get rid of it on FF but not on IE.
Now, when I refresh this page on FF it takes only 2 seconds,
but on IE it takes 2 seconds to reload then freeze for 15 seconds while the script running.
I think the script search the whole page to find the keywords it likes then do some more stuff on them.
Great.... now I'm getting the "Unresponsive Script" error on THIS thread.... that makes at least two threads where I get that error.
-tg
I have a prediction...
The longer this thread gets, the worse the responsiveness will become.
What a joke.
This really sucks
Spoo
Spoo - I suspect you are correct... after thinking about it... the other thread where I see this happen consistently, it too is long... compounded by the fact it also contains a number of code blocks too.
dang shame... it really is. I suspect that this is going to severely limit my time here to off hours, which could mean fewer threads I participate it.
-tg
TG
I too had an after-thought.. my earlier prediction may be incorrect.
I now suspect that the script only reads the current "page".
Thus, as this thread currently has 2 pages, it would only scan
page 2 and not page 1.
Regardless, the whole thing just flat out stinks.
Spoo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoo
Well he didn't specify these ads, he only said "the adverts on this site", which to me could mean any or all of them. There are certain realities here that we all have to deal with, and they are:Quote:
Originally Posted by nbrege
It takes a lot of money to host and maintain a site/forum of this size. The database is several gigabytes, and it gets a ton of traffic. It's expensive to host and to maintain.
The company that publishes these sites employs quite a few people whose job it is to maintain these sites, including this one. I'm one of them. It's a business, like any other. The site isn't owned and operated by the public library, or the "International Association for free IT sites".
The widespread use of ad blocking by users has cut down on advertising in general. I tried to warn some people on the forums about this a few years ago. The long-term effect wasn't difficult to predict. Enough users felt that it wasn't worth viewing the ads, in order to have a free service, so enough of them started using ad blocking, and advertisers are not going to continue pouring their revenue into something that does not avail them. That's how all of these issues came to be.
So publishers of free sites like this are trying to find additional means to keep going. It's not just us, it's all the free sites on the Internet. In a manner of speaking, Internet users are cutting their own throats simply to avoid the "inconvenience" of adverts. I wasn't joking about it then and I am not now, free sites will eventually disappear if this trend continues.
I have seen this site go from a place for programmers to ask questions and get answers to a vehicle to produce more revenue for JM. Think about it logically; go to far and the good people will either stop posting or post less, that means less people visit for answers and less people look at and click on ads (that nugget of advice is for free too, because business consultant would probably charge you $1000 per hour for that). I have seen some of our main contributors move elsewhere (who knows why but I am sure the commercialisation didn't help). You have also lost at least one moderator because of it. Why would someone want to visit this site and help out when they have a spare 5 mins at work if it is littered with ad’s and pages load slowly?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPnyc
I have no problems with advertisements as long as they do not degrade the content and availability of the website; this site seems to be an example of both. And yes, I know that there are other sites owned by JM that are even worse, but that doesn't change the fact that this is too much. If you add any more then the site may as well not be here at all, because pages will take longer to load than a call to technical support or an email to a fellow developer. ;)
More? No. actually less. I explained why in my post above. We will try to look into the delay in the page load however.
I doubt it; given that this site has changed hands more than rusty old coin, if it were not profitable I am sure the share holders at Quin Street aka Web Media Brands aka Jupitermedia would sell it off to someone else. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JPnyc
maybe if the ads were part of the HTML that's sent to the browser rather than tacked on at the end by seemingly buggy javascript, then it wouldn't be an issue. all of the rendering would be on the server and it wouldn't hijack (because that's how I feel since it locks ALL of my firefox instances) the client and it couldn't be blocked by disabling javascript. I've always been in full support of this site... I don't block the ads (my company firewall does, but that's out of my control, but at home, everything runs as expected) I tolerated the initial VS2010 adwords that showed up... but what has happened in the last week or so, since they became more pervasive.... I dunno... There's got to be a better way that is less intrusive.
-tg
JPQuote:
Originally Posted by JPnyc
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
(and please ignore my posts #64 and #66, as I kind of temporarily "lost it").
Let me reiterate..
-- I love this site
-- I definitely understand that ads are part of the game to generate revenue.
But, why does the script take so long?
-- I can live with the double underline (although it does get confusing at times)
-- But why does it take 10-15 seconds to execute?
-- Could it be optimized?
-- And why does it need to hijack the CPU? (can't scroll, can't type, etc)
If the script had the equivalent of a VB6 DoEvents statement, then 99% of the
complaints would evaporate.
Surely some reasonable compromise can be achieved.
Spoo
JM/WebMediaBrands DID sell it, to Quinstreet. There is no relationship between the former and current ownership other than that transaction between them. That's what I'm trying to tell you, the advertising just is not there like it was, and it's largely the result of ad blocking in wide usage, and the economy in general. Advertisers are beginning to no longer view it as a viable means of reaching users. And I guarantee the effect goes way beyond any of our sites.Quote:
Originally Posted by visualAd
OK... so ads are here to stay... that's fine... but the root of the problem I don't think has been addressed. Namely the points Spoo has brought up:
I don't think any of us are actually questioning the ads themselves (except that the keyword/ad link seems baffling at times) ... but rather the execution of the script & ads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoo
-tg
Oh believe me, Brad and I are trying to get that looked at. We are trying to get it improved upon. Unfortunately we're not all powerful, but we are pushing for an improvement on that.
That would indeed be an incredible performance improvement, but that's just not how ads work generally.Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
Ad-distributors usually pay-per-click or pay-per-view.
Now if you are an ad-distributor yourself it's no problem to embed it with some php.
But if you're not a distributor, the distributors have no way of knowing how much an ad is displayed or clicked.
I don't disagree with the reasons for the advertisements. I disagree with the way it has been done. I do not block the ads on this site; although I have no intention of clicking them they are mostly targeted at the US market.
But I am sure you know as well I that every single advertisement on this website can be blocked, mainly due to the way they have been implemented. Sure its possible to block inline, text based advertisements with a Greasemonkey script but not many people would go to the trouble of writing one.
There is also the small matter that when this site did change ownership, when advertising was more profitable and the economy was healthier it would have became more expensive to run. In larger corporations the number of stake holders and interested parties looking for their piece of the pie increase and there is also the cost of subsuming the acquired organisation into the core infrastructure. VBF will probably still survive as a free site but may change ownership a few more times into a smaller organisation before stabilising. The challenge will be to keep the good people loyal and contributing the excellent content and I really do not think that this is helping :(.
Anyhow, that’s my 2 cents, I’ll say no more :)
I assume you're referring to personnel cutbacks. The number of people that actually maintain the site's infrastructure wasn't cut, because essentially there was no place to cut. You just need a certain number of people to keep sites like this running, it's just a bottom line fact. Most of the cutbacks were in editorial which don't really directly affect the forums. Indirectly perhaps. Other than that, I don't see where costs would be any different now, than then. Employees also expect rises in salary occasionally, so unless you keep turning over personnel, your costs generally increase each yr.
I don't know that small organizations would have such an easy time maintaining sites as busy as this one gets. Perhaps some could, but I think you would see some deterioration somewhere along the way. It takes monster servers to handle the huge database and traffic.
Thank you... that's the FIRST acknowledgment I've seen that there is a problem, and that it's being looked at. I think I'll go back to my corner now... keep chipping away at my rocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPnyc
-tg
Sorry, lots of unrelated issues at the same time sort of kept me from addressing the initial issue. Mea culpa .:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
Hear! Hear!
Spoo
I don't think it's fair to blame ad blocking for the decline. If advertisements are annoying, they are no good as adverts, so blocking them is the only sensible thing to do -- for the advertisers as well as for the readers.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPnyc
That way there may be some pressure to think of reasonably non-annoying ways to advertise. Printed media have managed to do that well enough for the last century or so, and so have movies and television to varying degrees. Why can't we do it on the unternet [where u=i, just to avoid the double underline]?
BB
Ok genuis... how would you go about doing that? I open a magazine, read an article.... and on that same page, there's an ad in the corner.... now... looking at the top right corner of VBF, I see the same thing... an ad taking up the corner of the screen... and yet people complained about that too... and many people use ad blocker so they don't have to deal with it.Quote:
That way there may be some pressure to think of reasonably non-annoying ways to advertise. Printed media have managed to do that well enough for the last century or so, and so have movies and television to varying degrees.
Also... LOOK through a magazine sometime... I mean REALLY LOOK through them... generally speaking, unless they are heavily subsidized, they are probably 60% or more ads vs content. I'm not sure that's what we want here.
-tg
If I knew a way to do it, I would be a lot wealthier than I am today:D. It's the people who earn fortunes working in the ad industry who ought to think up some new ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
The magazines make my point. On the whole they have found a reasonable balance where readers can enjoy the content and sometimes look at and even enjoy the advertisements. I'm sure it's not easy, but in the long run they reach a compromise where the readers, the publishers and the advertisers all get something out of it; or they perish.
AdWords is a perfect illustration of a wrong way to go about it. It's based on a crude misinterpretation of the idea of targeted advertising. Common keywords have no bearing on what the reader is interested in, and they usually have multiple meanings anyway. If I'm looking for information on concert programs or enrolment programs, I don't want to be blasted with ill-designed ads from software houses.
Script blocking is another matter anyway. If all the popular browsers and email clients had opt-in script blocking by default, there would be rather fewer zombie botnets in operation. Discovering that it also kills AdWords was just a piece of luck.
BB:D
I've never used an ad-blocker as such myself. All I'm using right now is the regular IE popup blocker.
This site is effectively broken now. It is painful and claustrophobic to use. Other sites have these nasty pop-links embedded in a similar manner without the performance hit, so clearly either the script is of crappy quality or something is poorly tuned.
I won't go into the issue of sustaining profit-taking in a down economy or the morality of ad-blocking an ad-supported service. Those have been covered already. Half a goose is better than none though, and this goose may have been killed.
My use of the site has dropped dramatically. This new script is the problem.
Wait, for the advertisers? It's sensible for them that users block their ads? That gave me whiplash. Can you clarify that for me?Quote:
Originally Posted by boops boops
It hasn't pressured anybody into changing their methods, it's only pressured them into looking for other avenues to advertise their products.
Look folks it's not a complex equation. Free sites like this are usually ad supported. When enough of you block the ads, the advertiser doesn't see any return on his investment, and he looks elsewhere. Next occurrence, free site closes. It's really that simple.
Now, as regarding the performance of this particular script, we are looking into that. We know it's an issue and we are trying to fix it.
But vast majority don't bother with those anyway so how is it different from blocking? Even TV ads if you are familiar how they work can be blocked or ignored. Advertisers cannot control the outcome - content is what makes a huge difference but I am afraid that you may loose the "golden nugget".Quote:
Originally Posted by JPnyc
Advertisement is basically a waste of tons of money with hopes that there will be some return on investment - no one can guarantee anything, though.
I work in the industry long enough so I can afford to say that.
Now I am as well as all the others are curios about how in the world VBF managed to survive for so long without those ads?
Absolutely, and advertisers know that. Advertising is, by its very nature, a high output, low return, proposition. That's just the nature of the beast. However there is still acceptable and unacceptable margins to be dealt with. They still do get a return on the advertising they do, and when they stop getting that, they stop spending money on advertising for whatever particular avenue is not giving them any return.Quote:
Originally Posted by RhinoBull
It's no different than nature building in certain characteristics in wildlife, such as fish laying 10,000 eggs, of which maybe 10 will survive to adulthood. But when that number drops to zero; extinction.
It's not that dramatic, JP and you know it. Common... :) But you still didn't answer the question.
Actually, any pair of parents need only two offspring to survive to adulthood, on average, but we are struggling to get back 2 our of 5,000 for our Chinook.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPnyc
but that's off topic. You just hit a subject that's close to home.:wave:
Were changes made since this thread began? The delay seems to bounce around, though it appears slightly less overall. I'm not seeing as much of a delay as some people report. Annoying, but not a deal breaker. I do think that it reduces the number of visits I make in a day, though.
On the other hand, and on an only vaguely related note, the thought that ad revenues are the only thing floating this boat, though I realize it is true, makes me queasy. I think back over all the ads I have seen, and none on this site have ever motivated me in any direction, but that is likely due to being immersed in the industry to an extent that makes it unlikely for me to be reading ads.
This site provides a service to MS that they are trying to duplicate with their own forums...with somewhat less success in my opinion. It does seem like there might be other revenue sources....but the very thought of fund raising gives me hives, so I think I'll just get back to my code....or my cod...wait, wrong fish.
I just noticed that the automated ad links are in double lines already. That is a good thing so I could differentiate it with the link posted by a user.
Unless something is being hidden from all of us, the only income that this site gets is from advertisers... and we all know that there are costs that need to be covered.Quote:
Originally Posted by RhinoBull
I don't know the details for this site, but in general advertisers pay for two things: ad's being shown, and ad's being clicked. In terms of that, there is clearly a huge difference between ignoring the ad's and blocking the ad's.
What I do (and I presume you and others in this thread do too) is allow the ad's to be shown, and occasionally click on them if they are interesting to me in some way. The amount of pages that I view means that presumably the advertisers are paying this site a reasonable amount - hopefully enough to cover the costs I incur.
Unfortunately there are people who block the ad's (and the amount increases over time), which means this site does not get paid anything for the costs that are incurred by those users. The costs are small each time, but it obviously builds up.
As the proportion of blocking goes up, the amount of adverts needs to go up in order for the same income to be generated... and the advertisers are also less willing to be involved (because there are fewer potential customers, and more adverts on the page to compete with when they are shown), which decreases the amount that the advertisers are willing to pay.
If they were fewer people blocking ad's, there would be far less reason for an increase in the amount of advertising... which is why I personally don't want people to block ad's, or tell others how to do it.
When I say advertisers, I mean the people who have some ostensibly useful product (other than advertising) which they wish to sell. Using a boneheaded marketed technique like Adwords just damages their reputation. Would anyone do serious business with a company that willingly pesters everyone with intrusive ads?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPnyc
It's not advertising clients (as above) who need pressurizing, its the ad agencies/click merchants. They need to rethink their methods, and find a way of advertising that doesn't repel the users or swindle the advertising clients with false claims of targeted advertising.Quote:
It hasn't pressured anybody into changing their methods, it's only pressured them into looking for other avenues to advertise their products.
I'm not suggesting there is necessarily a quick fix. It may take years of development, with intelligent design (and I'm not talking about a bearded man in the sky) and maybe some technological changes.Quote:
Look folks it's not a complex equation. Free sites like this are usually ad supported. When enough of you block the ads, the advertiser doesn't see any return on his investment, and he looks elsewhere. Next occurrence, free site closes. It's really that simple.
But we could find an interim solution. How about a kind of SETI project, where everyone has screen saver that spends all night autoclicking Adwords? Forums like this would soon become stinking rich and they wouldn't have to change a thing.
Well that's what script blockers are for. As far as I know they are not the same as ad blockers, which I believe blacklist and whitelist selected HTML frames. (Excuse me: I am talking here as though I knew something about internet technology. Actually I am one of the few fish species that still writes email with a fountain pen;)).Quote:
Now, as regarding the performance of this particular script, we are looking into that. We know it's an issue and we are trying to fix it.
BB
Unless you actually have a better solution, comments along the lines of "there should be something better" are a waste of time.
Advertising agencies and their clients obviously want things that work without annoying the users (because that drives them away), and they will clearly be spending time trying to come up with solutions.
That has been done on other sites, who generally completely disappear soon afterwards - the advertising agencies etc are not idiots.Quote:
But we could find an interim solution. How about a kind of SETI project, where everyone has screen saver that spends all night autoclicking Adwords? Forums like this would soon become stinking rich and they wouldn't have to change a thing.
In this case they are the same... but while the delay is there (and only while it is there), I can understand using them.Quote:
Well that's what script blockers are for. As far as I know they are not the same as ad blockers,
I don't agree. I think we should be free to speak out when we don't like something. Criticism can perform a useful function even when it's negative.Quote:
Originally Posted by si_the_geek
Besides, I don't claim to know much about the ad industry or about web technology. I was joking about SETI but I ran out of smilies. For what it's worth though here's a couple of suggestions:
1. People who work for related technology companies could post relevant and interesting responses to the forum. They should have beautifully designed banner adverts in their signatures with clickable links to their corporate websites. They could try to impress users of the forums concerned with their helpfulness, knowledge, intelligence and wit. Now that would be targeted advertising. (By the way, I'm not using my signature at the moment, so the space is to rent for a reasonable fee.)
2. Now that most people have wide screens, there could be a column of clickable advertising panels down one side of the forum page. Maximum width of say about one eighth of the window, and ideally users can drag it to left or right according to preference. Users should be able to dim the column to some extent and maybe stop animations so that it's not too intrusive. The full state would be restored by moving the mouse pointer back into the area. It could be up to the advertisers to ensure the appropriateness and good design of the ads, and forum site could itself stipulate standards such as limited animation. Complete disabling of the ad column e.g. with an ad blocker could be discouraged by a partial degradation of the forum view (how about enabling Adwords:)?)
Making this things work well might require some technical or consensus changes for all I know. But would they be impossible?
BB
I think the analogy works. The issue is that it's high output/low return by its very nature. That's what I was trying to demonstrate. As to how the forum survived this long without them (I assume that's the question you refer to), things didn't reach critical mass until the past year. Combinations of various factors such as forum posting having diminished all over the web, been cut into by the emergence of social network sites, the economic crunch, and things like widespread ad blocking. All these combined to bring the situation to a head. There were massive cutbacks, mostly in editorial (because we already were functioning on minimal technical staff), and that's how it survived this long.Quote:
Originally Posted by RhinoBull
This is my idea for admin on ads:
1. Suspend the new st*p*d keyword pop-up ads.
2. Totally ban rubbish graphic in people's signatures (up to 5 lines of small size text only is OK). Those graphics are very annoyed too for a professional site and it also takes up resources for downloading repeatedly.
3. Insert a small ads after every third post. That will be reasonable, understandable and acceptable by everyone.
You guys are ignoring the reality here. If there were no return on it, they wouldn't do it. What we need to remember is, it's not how we would react that matters, or even how the majority reacts. If there is a fair percentage, and that's probably well below 10%, that do respond favorably, that's the return they're expecting. Like I said it's very high output very low return by its nature. Most of these businesses are not ineptly run. It's not the government we're talking about here. If you are a business and you are run ineptly, you disappear.Quote:
Originally Posted by boops boops
Just something I've noticed happening alot in the forum lately. I open a thread and it appears to load up fine but as I scroll down it freezes for a couple of seconds then I get a pop up reading someing like "A java script is causing this page to run slowly. Do Not Use This Script?" with a Yes No Optopn. I've tried clicking both yes and no but can't spot anything different about the page either way. This is happening on both my home and work machines, both of which are running IE8.
Not a big problem for me (though a minor nuisance) but I thought I ought to highlight it.
we are working to get this fixed.
Brad!