Forum Posting Etiquette
-
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@dave247 said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
I do like the idea of many smaller posts - but it also runs into the problem of many thing to respond to at once. While I'm no where near as fast as Scott, I can typically type two to three small posts before the OP (or anyone other than Scott) replies to my first reply. So unlike your
I like red.
So do I, but have you considered orange,
no but, ...you aren't having a real back and forth because you run into the same problem as the wall of text issue. I real time conversation where all involved parties get the information simultaneously, in a forum you have people jumping in in the middle and fleeing, or someone who just throws out 5 ideas, each in their own post before any responses are made, and eventually many people just stop reading anything but the last few posts.
I'm not sure you can solve this problem, but it's just good to know it's there.
But smaller posts make it easier to respond. No matter how much time you have, making it faster and easier helps you. Wall of text in the same situation would mean no ability to respond at all.
I noticed this with how you post back in Spiceworks and I was like, what the hell is this guy doing. But having broken up posts to respond to is kind of nice. It becomes not nice when there are many of them peppered throughout the whole forum page. Then you have to scroll around like crazy to find what it is you need to respond to.
You still have to scroll a lot with a wall of text, too. The multiple postings doesn't really make for much more scrolling. And it can only happen if no one is actively responding on a thread, if there was an active discussion it can't happen. The effect that you see is generally created by someone kicking it off via a wall of text to which many responses need to be generated at once. So walls of text actually are the key source of the non-wall of text system that many people dislike.
Usually people do that thing where they break up a wall of text in one post and reply to sections. It's the best of both worlds. Example:
Creation vs Evolutoin debate
blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blahWell actually your point is invalid here because...
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Ah yes, you are correct here because...
blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahI can't argue with that logic
-
@dave247 said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
I do like the idea of many smaller posts - but it also runs into the problem of many thing to respond to at once. While I'm no where near as fast as Scott, I can typically type two to three small posts before the OP (or anyone other than Scott) replies to my first reply. So unlike your
I like red.
So do I, but have you considered orange,
no but, ...you aren't having a real back and forth because you run into the same problem as the wall of text issue. I real time conversation where all involved parties get the information simultaneously, in a forum you have people jumping in in the middle and fleeing, or someone who just throws out 5 ideas, each in their own post before any responses are made, and eventually many people just stop reading anything but the last few posts.
I'm not sure you can solve this problem, but it's just good to know it's there.
But smaller posts make it easier to respond. No matter how much time you have, making it faster and easier helps you. Wall of text in the same situation would mean no ability to respond at all.
I noticed this with how you post back in Spiceworks and I was like, what the hell is this guy doing. But having broken up posts to respond to is kind of nice. It becomes not nice when there are many of them peppered throughout the whole forum page. Then you have to scroll around like crazy to find what it is you need to respond to.
Yeah, but for someone new coming in to the topic or someone who was away for awhile, will come back to 100 replies. At that point, it becomes TL;DR. So they read the original post, and maybe the first few replies, then reply themselves. And then of course missing any important info in the 90 replies nobody except SAM has time to read through.
-
I do agree with avoiding walls of text. That is bad. But you still don't have to break up replies sentence by sentence either. There's a middle ground.
-
@tim_g said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
I do agree with avoiding walls of text. That is bad. But you still don't have to break up replies sentence by sentence either. There's a middle ground.
It's about individual thoughts. Ideally, you want someone to be able to respond without having to specify to what they are responding. If you need to edit the text to make the quote clear, it's too much in most cases.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@dave247 said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
I do like the idea of many smaller posts - but it also runs into the problem of many thing to respond to at once. While I'm no where near as fast as Scott, I can typically type two to three small posts before the OP (or anyone other than Scott) replies to my first reply. So unlike your
I like red.
So do I, but have you considered orange,
no but, ...you aren't having a real back and forth because you run into the same problem as the wall of text issue. I real time conversation where all involved parties get the information simultaneously, in a forum you have people jumping in in the middle and fleeing, or someone who just throws out 5 ideas, each in their own post before any responses are made, and eventually many people just stop reading anything but the last few posts.
I'm not sure you can solve this problem, but it's just good to know it's there.
But smaller posts make it easier to respond. No matter how much time you have, making it faster and easier helps you. Wall of text in the same situation would mean no ability to respond at all.
I noticed this with how you post back in Spiceworks and I was like, what the hell is this guy doing. But having broken up posts to respond to is kind of nice. It becomes not nice when there are many of them peppered throughout the whole forum page. Then you have to scroll around like crazy to find what it is you need to respond to.
You still have to scroll a lot with a wall of text, too. The multiple postings doesn't really make for much more scrolling. And it can only happen if no one is actively responding on a thread, if there was an active discussion it can't happen. The effect that you see is generally created by someone kicking it off via a wall of text to which many responses need to be generated at once. So walls of text actually are the key source of the non-wall of text system that many people dislike.
This is sometimes true - but it's just as likely that you could come across a thread a few hours after it started, and you being you will read the whole thread and then respond to about half the posts, putting 10+ posts from you in a row. I've been known to do this as well. In this situations is when I tend to have a wall of text with quotes.. so it's all in one post, not a dozen small ones. I can see now why that's not so helpful, but really neither is 10 small posts in a row.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@dave247 said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
I do like the idea of many smaller posts - but it also runs into the problem of many thing to respond to at once. While I'm no where near as fast as Scott, I can typically type two to three small posts before the OP (or anyone other than Scott) replies to my first reply. So unlike your
I like red.
So do I, but have you considered orange,
no but, ...you aren't having a real back and forth because you run into the same problem as the wall of text issue. I real time conversation where all involved parties get the information simultaneously, in a forum you have people jumping in in the middle and fleeing, or someone who just throws out 5 ideas, each in their own post before any responses are made, and eventually many people just stop reading anything but the last few posts.
I'm not sure you can solve this problem, but it's just good to know it's there.
But smaller posts make it easier to respond. No matter how much time you have, making it faster and easier helps you. Wall of text in the same situation would mean no ability to respond at all.
I noticed this with how you post back in Spiceworks and I was like, what the hell is this guy doing. But having broken up posts to respond to is kind of nice. It becomes not nice when there are many of them peppered throughout the whole forum page. Then you have to scroll around like crazy to find what it is you need to respond to.
This was my point - in other words both situations lead to the same end, people not reading/responding to posts.
Keep in mind what you are implying here... that there is a post that is so long, that if responded to, people won't respond. So the answer is to... not respond? Doesn't that suggest two things...
- Not responding would make it worse, not better - because it would just make the thing that you don't want to have happen, happen earlier?
- That the source of the issue is the original post(s) that created a situation where you already don't like the length that it would take to respond to them?
Well frankly, due to the organic nature of so many of our and other threads, anything more than about 30 posts deep become near pointless as almost no new comer will read the entire thread before responding. If you're lucky, they'll read the OP and the last 4-5 posts very likely repeating something someone already said.
-
@dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@dave247 said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
I do like the idea of many smaller posts - but it also runs into the problem of many thing to respond to at once. While I'm no where near as fast as Scott, I can typically type two to three small posts before the OP (or anyone other than Scott) replies to my first reply. So unlike your
I like red.
So do I, but have you considered orange,
no but, ...you aren't having a real back and forth because you run into the same problem as the wall of text issue. I real time conversation where all involved parties get the information simultaneously, in a forum you have people jumping in in the middle and fleeing, or someone who just throws out 5 ideas, each in their own post before any responses are made, and eventually many people just stop reading anything but the last few posts.
I'm not sure you can solve this problem, but it's just good to know it's there.
But smaller posts make it easier to respond. No matter how much time you have, making it faster and easier helps you. Wall of text in the same situation would mean no ability to respond at all.
I noticed this with how you post back in Spiceworks and I was like, what the hell is this guy doing. But having broken up posts to respond to is kind of nice. It becomes not nice when there are many of them peppered throughout the whole forum page. Then you have to scroll around like crazy to find what it is you need to respond to.
This was my point - in other words both situations lead to the same end, people not reading/responding to posts.
Keep in mind what you are implying here... that there is a post that is so long, that if responded to, people won't respond. So the answer is to... not respond? Doesn't that suggest two things...
- Not responding would make it worse, not better - because it would just make the thing that you don't want to have happen, happen earlier?
- That the source of the issue is the original post(s) that created a situation where you already don't like the length that it would take to respond to them?
Well frankly, due to the organic nature of so many of our and other threads, anything more than about 30 posts deep become near pointless as almost no new comer will read the entire thread before responding. If you're lucky, they'll read the OP and the last 4-5 posts very likely repeating something someone already said.
Yeah that's expected. That's also why I never mind when someone repeats an answered question or fact when there's too many replies.
-
@dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@dave247 said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
I do like the idea of many smaller posts - but it also runs into the problem of many thing to respond to at once. While I'm no where near as fast as Scott, I can typically type two to three small posts before the OP (or anyone other than Scott) replies to my first reply. So unlike your
I like red.
So do I, but have you considered orange,
no but, ...you aren't having a real back and forth because you run into the same problem as the wall of text issue. I real time conversation where all involved parties get the information simultaneously, in a forum you have people jumping in in the middle and fleeing, or someone who just throws out 5 ideas, each in their own post before any responses are made, and eventually many people just stop reading anything but the last few posts.
I'm not sure you can solve this problem, but it's just good to know it's there.
But smaller posts make it easier to respond. No matter how much time you have, making it faster and easier helps you. Wall of text in the same situation would mean no ability to respond at all.
I noticed this with how you post back in Spiceworks and I was like, what the hell is this guy doing. But having broken up posts to respond to is kind of nice. It becomes not nice when there are many of them peppered throughout the whole forum page. Then you have to scroll around like crazy to find what it is you need to respond to.
This was my point - in other words both situations lead to the same end, people not reading/responding to posts.
Keep in mind what you are implying here... that there is a post that is so long, that if responded to, people won't respond. So the answer is to... not respond? Doesn't that suggest two things...
- Not responding would make it worse, not better - because it would just make the thing that you don't want to have happen, happen earlier?
- That the source of the issue is the original post(s) that created a situation where you already don't like the length that it would take to respond to them?
Well frankly, due to the organic nature of so many of our and other threads, anything more than about 30 posts deep become near pointless as almost no new comer will read the entire thread before responding. If you're lucky, they'll read the OP and the last 4-5 posts very likely repeating something someone already said.
But that is the case regardless. Wall of texts just accelerate it.
-
@Dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@dave247 said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
I do like the idea of many smaller posts - but it also runs into the problem of many thing to respond to at once. While I'm no where near as fast as Scott, I can typically type two to three small posts before the OP (or anyone other than Scott) replies to my first reply. So unlike your
I like red.
So do I, but have you considered orange,
no but, ...you aren't having a real back and forth because you run into the same problem as the wall of text issue. I real time conversation where all involved parties get the information simultaneously, in a forum you have people jumping in in the middle and fleeing, or someone who just throws out 5 ideas, each in their own post before any responses are made, and eventually many people just stop reading anything but the last few posts.
I'm not sure you can solve this problem, but it's just good to know it's there.
But smaller posts make it easier to respond. No matter how much time you have, making it faster and easier helps you. Wall of text in the same situation would mean no ability to respond at all.
I noticed this with how you post back in Spiceworks and I was like, what the hell is this guy doing. But having broken up posts to respond to is kind of nice. It becomes not nice when there are many of them peppered throughout the whole forum page. Then you have to scroll around like crazy to find what it is you need to respond to.
This was my point - in other words both situations lead to the same end, people not reading/responding to posts.
Keep in mind what you are implying here... that there is a post that is so long, that if responded to, people won't respond. So the answer is to... not respond? Doesn't that suggest two things...
- Not responding would make it worse, not better - because it would just make the thing that you don't want to have happen, happen earlier?
- That the source of the issue is the original post(s) that created a situation where you already don't like the length that it would take to respond to them?
Well frankly, due to the organic nature of so many of our and other threads, anything more than about 30 posts deep become near pointless as almost no new comer will read the entire thread before responding. If you're lucky, they'll read the OP and the last 4-5 posts very likely repeating something someone already said.
The difference being that with a wall of text you can cause people to leave the conversation in a single go, rather than after a long thread has happened, because you have to read so much to even figure out the context. That's part of the point - people use it when they want to stop people from bothering to respond. It's all about upping the "minimum point of response" to make it too much effort or too time consuming for people to bother responding. So it only makes sense to use when you know you are wrong already and want to silence opposition. If you truly want to find answers, or don't believe what you are saying is false, then it has no benefits.
-
@dave247 said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@dave247 said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
I do like the idea of many smaller posts - but it also runs into the problem of many thing to respond to at once. While I'm no where near as fast as Scott, I can typically type two to three small posts before the OP (or anyone other than Scott) replies to my first reply. So unlike your
I like red.
So do I, but have you considered orange,
no but, ...you aren't having a real back and forth because you run into the same problem as the wall of text issue. I real time conversation where all involved parties get the information simultaneously, in a forum you have people jumping in in the middle and fleeing, or someone who just throws out 5 ideas, each in their own post before any responses are made, and eventually many people just stop reading anything but the last few posts.
I'm not sure you can solve this problem, but it's just good to know it's there.
But smaller posts make it easier to respond. No matter how much time you have, making it faster and easier helps you. Wall of text in the same situation would mean no ability to respond at all.
I noticed this with how you post back in Spiceworks and I was like, what the hell is this guy doing. But having broken up posts to respond to is kind of nice. It becomes not nice when there are many of them peppered throughout the whole forum page. Then you have to scroll around like crazy to find what it is you need to respond to.
You still have to scroll a lot with a wall of text, too. The multiple postings doesn't really make for much more scrolling. And it can only happen if no one is actively responding on a thread, if there was an active discussion it can't happen. The effect that you see is generally created by someone kicking it off via a wall of text to which many responses need to be generated at once. So walls of text actually are the key source of the non-wall of text system that many people dislike.
Usually people do that thing where they break up a wall of text in one post and reply to sections. It's the best of both worlds. Example:
Creation vs Evolutoin debate
blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blahWell actually your point is invalid here because...
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Ah yes, you are correct here because...
blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahI can't argue with that logic
I'd say it's not the best. It takes more effort for you to respond, and way more effort for someone to respond to you, and it makes your post a collection of disconnected thoughts, which doesn't make a lot of sense. It seems to lack benefits.
The responses like this show that someone has seen a wall of text and feels the need to fix it because clearly separate responses were needed. But didn't take the easier step of responding to each point and keeps it combined. It passes much of the response and clarity effort on down the line rather than fixing it early. It's not bad to do, but it doesn't fix the wall of text, just improves it.
-
I think I like FB's way about the best. There is the OP, followed by level one of posts, which can have their own second level, but not a third - though a third, etc would be awesome because it would allow someone to have a full on conversation about that single higher idea - the main thing to be concerned about would be the eventual drifting of that conversation would would belong to a high yet post.
-
@Dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
I think I like FB's way about the best. There is the OP, followed by level one of posts, which can have their own second level, but not a third - though a third, etc would be awesome because it would allow someone to have a full on conversation about that single higher idea - the main thing to be concerned about would be the eventual drifting of that conversation would would belong to a high yet post.
It's not a bad concept. I've found that whatever FB does, though, results in just.... no meaningful conversation. It's very drifting and lost. Maybe it is because they don't have a good way to view it. But I never seen meaningful conversations there, just this weird meandering of comments. It makes it easy to respond and leave and never to engage or find closure. It's good for gossip, bad for peer review.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@Dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
I think I like FB's way about the best. There is the OP, followed by level one of posts, which can have their own second level, but not a third - though a third, etc would be awesome because it would allow someone to have a full on conversation about that single higher idea - the main thing to be concerned about would be the eventual drifting of that conversation would would belong to a high yet post.
It's not a bad concept. I've found that whatever FB does, though, results in just.... no meaningful conversation. It's very drifting and lost. Maybe it is because they don't have a good way to view it. But I never seen meaningful conversations there, just this weird meandering of comments. It makes it easy to respond and leave and never to engage or find closure. It's good for gossip, bad for peer review.
I think that's just the way people treat it - I've had some (though very few) good fully engaged conversations on FB.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
that thing where they break up a wall of text in one post and reply to sections. It's the best of both worlds. Example:
I hate to post too many answers and going through each answer. It just makes it harder to follow. Already a whole paragraph to respond and now we need to answer in four different posts. That is just insane for the followup that comes after it.
-
@dbeato said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
that thing where they break up a wall of text in one post and reply to sections. It's the best of both worlds. Example:
I hate to post too many answers and going through each answer. It just makes it harder to follow. Already a whole paragraph to respond and now we need to answer in four different posts. That is just insane for the followup that comes after it.
It's more to follow, but it keeps the following easier because you don't have to figure out a long post and all the posts that it was responding to. It keeps the thoughts separate.
-
@Dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@Dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
I think I like FB's way about the best. There is the OP, followed by level one of posts, which can have their own second level, but not a third - though a third, etc would be awesome because it would allow someone to have a full on conversation about that single higher idea - the main thing to be concerned about would be the eventual drifting of that conversation would would belong to a high yet post.
It's not a bad concept. I've found that whatever FB does, though, results in just.... no meaningful conversation. It's very drifting and lost. Maybe it is because they don't have a good way to view it. But I never seen meaningful conversations there, just this weird meandering of comments. It makes it easy to respond and leave and never to engage or find closure. It's good for gossip, bad for peer review.
I think that's just the way people treat it - I've had some (though very few) good fully engaged conversations on FB.
Yeah, that's very possible. But I think the interface plays a role in encouraging behaviour. LIke it never shows what is relevant.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@Dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@Dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
I think I like FB's way about the best. There is the OP, followed by level one of posts, which can have their own second level, but not a third - though a third, etc would be awesome because it would allow someone to have a full on conversation about that single higher idea - the main thing to be concerned about would be the eventual drifting of that conversation would would belong to a high yet post.
It's not a bad concept. I've found that whatever FB does, though, results in just.... no meaningful conversation. It's very drifting and lost. Maybe it is because they don't have a good way to view it. But I never seen meaningful conversations there, just this weird meandering of comments. It makes it easy to respond and leave and never to engage or find closure. It's good for gossip, bad for peer review.
I think that's just the way people treat it - I've had some (though very few) good fully engaged conversations on FB.
Yeah, that's very possible. But I think the interface plays a role in encouraging behaviour. LIke it never shows what is relevant.
yeah - I have no idea how FB decides what to show you?
I use a filter that always pulls the page back to chronological order. Shit thing though - FB reposts the same thing like 4 times sometimes, it's ridiculous
-
Not sure what the original source of this was, but found it interesting that they note the "wall of text" issue specifically as a problem that makes it hard for some people to follow the topic.
