Jump to content
Neighbours Forum - NeighboursFans.com

UPGRADE - 16/09


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

0.148 seconds, when in RealTime it took 25 seconds. <puzzled> My net connection in general is a bit slow at the moment, but this is by far the slowest to load (BBC Gardener's World takes about 5 seconds, as does N&F)


I'm going to turn off my router overnight and see if that helps to clear it.

Link to post

Well, it's definitely not the board software (else it wouldn't load like that). What's your response for a ping to the site?


(Get a DOS prompt up and then type ping www.neighboursfans.com - you'll get something like:


Reply from IP address: bytes = x time = x ms TTL = x)


The ms time figure is the one that's of interest.


Anyone else having the same problem, or is this isolated?

Link to post

I'll try that , but I just got this result for a speed test on BBC.co.uk:


Your connection to bbc.co.uk is working at 0.1 Mbps.


At this speed it would take you about 5 minutes to download a 4 minute song and over 2 hours to download a half hour TV programme.


Looks like it's the local BB connection...


Ermm, sorry, for being a Luddite, but how do I do a DOS prompt?

Edited by Barney
Link to post

It looks like you've definitely got a connection problem.


It depends which operating system you're on but for me it's Start Menu > Run


Then type in "cmd" without the quotes and it brings up a DOS prompt.


I would confidently say that's a local problem, so a tracert would probably narrow down for you which part of your connection is the weak link. (Load up a DOS prompt and type in tracert www.google.com - and it'll show you the hops that you take. I'm guessing your connection is getting stuck somewhere and that should explain where.)

Link to post

Thanks. I'll give that a go.


I've had the router unplugged as much as possible and used the net as little as possible over the last couple of days to clear static, which has slightly improved things, but NF is still very slow (about 12 seconds, as opposed to the 30+ it was taking) so I do need to trace the problem.

Edited by Barney
Link to post

Sal, I did the ping and this is what came back:


Reply from bytes 32 time 150ms TTL = 48

Reply from bytes 32 time 146ms TTL = 48

Reply from bytes 32 time 182ms TTL = 48

Reply from bytes 32 time 143ms TTL = 48 2 54.26


Ping statistics for

Packets sent = 4: received = 4: lost = 0

Approximate round trip time in milli-seconds

Minimum = 143: Maximum = 182: Average = 155


I don't know what it means but it seems to indicate that the connection speed's ok. Is that right? If so, I don't know what to do next as it's as slow on my pc as it is on the wireless laptop?

Link to post

You'd probably be best asking in the Problem Thread (I'm rushing out of the door atm) - because it's definitely a not a site issue. I'm not being unsympathetic but the site is functioning properly and the board is functioning properly, so it must be a problem elsewhere (presumably with your own set up as everyone else seems to be ok?).


Are other sites still loading slowly for you too?

Link to post

Thanks for taking time to answer, Sal. I needed to be sure that it was just me, though, as this site was the slowest to load (but is also one of the biggest I use).


After an appalling speed test result from the BBC site (I couldn't watch Emma!) I phoned BT and the time it took to load BT.com to do their test persuaded the lady at the other end that there really was a problem. Download speed was 184mbps ... The problem was at the exchange, and they are working on boosting the signal.


It's taken two days, but this site is now taking about 4 - 5 seconds to load and the download test's running at 1840 mbps. When they ring again, I will push for more, as I should be getting around 2.5mbps on a quiet Sunday afternoon.


Again, thanks for taking the time, especially in showing me how to do the ping. :)

Link to post
  • 3 weeks later...

*drags thread back up*


One thing I've noticed with the PM system - when you type it gives you a drop down box of options through the autocomplete which is great. However, the usernames in this box are in a very light colour which means you can't read them. You can clearly see the member group of the person, and their display picture, but not the actual name. Fine if you have an outside clue as to what that member's group / picture is, but otherwise you need to finish typing which almost negates the point of the autocomplete.


Is there any way to darken that font a little? Hardly a deal breaker, but thought it was worth asking.

Link to post

I've noticed the same thing on the blue skin. The same applies to the bit at the bottom of the screen which says I.e. '1 User(s) are reading this topic': it's so faint as to be virtually unreadable. But it's not a huge problem. :)

Link to post
  • 3 weeks later...

Forgot about them! I would say adlerj that it would require Sal to go through a whole heap of recoding seeing as it's a whole new version of the forum software, so probably wouldn't be any time soon if ever. I'll let Sal answer fully for you though :p


And another question, I just got really confused before when updating my status on here as I made one update, then Ally replied to me, and I replied back to her, however my first update before Ally replied was removed and "replaced" with my new one. Is it normal to only have one saved update appear at a time?


It would be cool if it could work like Facebook where all updates are seen (so the pane on the RHS on the home page is the "news feed") and each member's profile contains all of their recent status updates.

Edited by Swanny
Link to post

And another question, I just got really confused before when updating my status on here as I made one update, then Ally replied to me, and I replied back to her, however my first update before Ally replied was removed and "replaced" with my new one. Is it normal to only have one saved update appear at a time?

Yes, that always happens, Andrew. :) I would imagine to do what FB have would take a lot of coding - and a lot of 'space'/bandwidth.

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Terms of Use Guidelines Privacy Policy