FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: What does Fisheaters growth mean? What does Fisheaters itself mean for the world
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
(04-01-2011, 03:15 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]Welcome to the forum!

Thank you for the welcome.
I think that as the NO goes further and further from the Faith, i.e. puppet masses, etc., more people are sick of it and God is allowing them to find refuge in a place like FE while they find their boundaries again.  God is pulling them to the True Faith one step at a time and FE provides more information on Tradition than any other forum.  A Haven of sorts. 

It's also open to all people.  And they are free to ask questions and find the true answers, not the luv and peace insincerity that you find elsewhere.  That makes a HUGE difference.

The other reason, I think, is that we find more difficult things going on in the world and we are looking for answers.  God allows natural disasters and bad governments, etc... to remind us that HE is in control.  It's natural for there to be an increase in devotion in and after a time of suffering.  People look to the Church for answers and right now It is in crisis, which makes it even more confusing.  I'm not saying FE has all the answers, but it is a treasure chest of information, both from what Vox and Quis have put together and the combined knowledge of its members.  By their fruits ye shall know them.  FE growing is an indication of good fruit.  JMHO

/Thank you by the way, to Vox and Quis, and all the Fishies that have taught me so much.  May God reward you abundantly.  :pray2:
(03-31-2011, 09:18 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]That said, there is real growth: on the forum, on the website, and on the blog - all three.   I am also going to be adding things to the site to make it grow more - in visits, not necessarily forum members.

Glad to hear it. Another suggestion I have, though my IT skills are low, could you not delete the irrelevant archival threads. For example, the random conversations, threads that have repetitive topics, etc. Wouldn't this free up space for you as well?
(04-01-2011, 07:16 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: [ -> ]Glad to hear it. Another suggestion I have, though my IT skills are low, could you not delete the irrelevant archival threads. For example, the random conversations, threads that have repetitive topics, etc. Wouldn't this free up space for you as well?

Space is cheap; we have plenty. It's bandwidth and CPU that's expensive. 
(04-01-2011, 07:17 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2011, 07:16 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: [ -> ]Glad to hear it. Another suggestion I have, though my IT skills are low, could you not delete the irrelevant archival threads. For example, the random conversations, threads that have repetitive topics, etc. Wouldn't this free up space for you as well?

Space is cheap; we have plenty. It's bandwidth and CPU that's expensive. 

I am quite impressed with the schematics of this forum and the father website. Good response time, few glitches if any, good stuff. Does bandwidth merely affect speed of information or number of IP addresses to host? I am not entirely familiar.
(04-01-2011, 07:21 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2011, 07:17 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2011, 07:16 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: [ -> ]Glad to hear it. Another suggestion I have, though my IT skills are low, could you not delete the irrelevant archival threads. For example, the random conversations, threads that have repetitive topics, etc. Wouldn't this free up space for you as well?

Space is cheap; we have plenty. It's bandwidth and CPU that's expensive. 

I am quite impressed with the schematics of this forum and the father website. Good response time, few glitches if any, good stuff. Does bandwidth merely affect speed of information or number of IP addresses to host? I am not entirely familiar.

It's a complicated question, and an interesting queueing theory question, but the answer is both.  The faster your pipe, the more clients you can serve, and the faster you can serve them.

But I was using bandwidth in the sense of data transfer.  We have to pay for amount of data transferred.  The more data we send out the more it costs.  Right now we have an allotment that would take a while to go over as long as we're transferring mostly text.  If we streamed a lot of media, that might be a problem.
No time for proper comments yet. Just want to say I am grateful to Quis and others here for meaningful responses.

Cogitating. Cogitating ...
(04-01-2011, 07:52 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2011, 07:21 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2011, 07:17 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2011, 07:16 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: [ -> ]Glad to hear it. Another suggestion I have, though my IT skills are low, could you not delete the irrelevant archival threads. For example, the random conversations, threads that have repetitive topics, etc. Wouldn't this free up space for you as well?

Space is cheap; we have plenty. It's bandwidth and CPU that's expensive. 

I am quite impressed with the schematics of this forum and the father website. Good response time, few glitches if any, good stuff. Does bandwidth merely affect speed of information or number of IP addresses to host? I am not entirely familiar.

It's a complicated question, and an interesting queueing theory question, but the answer is both.  The faster your pipe, the more clients you can serve, and the faster you can serve them.

But I was using bandwidth in the sense of data transfer.  We have to pay for amount of data transferred.  The more data we send out the more it costs.  Right now we have an allotment that would take a while to go over as long as we're transferring mostly text.  If we streamed a lot of media, that might be a problem.

I'm a dummy.  Does this mean we eat up more bandwidth if we post up pictures or video?
(04-03-2011, 04:31 AM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2011, 07:52 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2011, 07:21 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2011, 07:17 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2011, 07:16 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: [ -> ]Glad to hear it. Another suggestion I have, though my IT skills are low, could you not delete the irrelevant archival threads. For example, the random conversations, threads that have repetitive topics, etc. Wouldn't this free up space for you as well?

Space is cheap; we have plenty. It's bandwidth and CPU that's expensive. 

I am quite impressed with the schematics of this forum and the father website. Good response time, few glitches if any, good stuff. Does bandwidth merely affect speed of information or number of IP addresses to host? I am not entirely familiar.

It's a complicated question, and an interesting queueing theory question, but the answer is both.  The faster your pipe, the more clients you can serve, and the faster you can serve them.

But I was using bandwidth in the sense of data transfer.  We have to pay for amount of data transferred.  The more data we send out the more it costs.  Right now we have an allotment that would take a while to go over as long as we're transferring mostly text.  If we streamed a lot of media, that might be a problem.

I'm a dummy.  Does this mean we eat up more bandwidth if we post up pictures or video?

No, only if the video or pictures are hosted here.  If they're youtube or photobucket or whatever, it uses their bandwidth.
(04-03-2011, 04:56 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]No, only if the video or pictures are hosted here.  If they're youtube or photobucket or whatever, it uses their bandwidth.

Gee, in that case lets keep posting! Those corporation backed sites can indirectly support our noble endeavors.  :P
Pages: 1 2 3 4