Christopher
Well-known member
If you have such a problem with people quoting uncontrollably, why not just PM them to stop doing it so much? Instead of ruining it for the rest of us?
-
Updated 2023-07-12: Hello, Guest! Welcome back, and be sure to check out this follow-up post about our outage a week or so ago.
The Quote button
- Thread starter Dog Cow
- Start date
- Status
Anybody who used quotes in a reasonable manner shouldn't be affected anyway. If it takes you even fifteen full additional seconds to find the text you wanted to talk about and then add the quote syntax around it, it should be fine. It's not like you're being paid to post more often or to be able to post very quickly.
Trash80toHP_Mini
NIGHT STALKER
I've ignored the war room discussion about this issue, so I was just as surprised as anyone else. That being said, I didn't have any problem at all quoting something for context in the first post I made after the change.
IMHO, get over it, reducing signal to noise ratios are generally a VERY GOOD THING! I've always tried to use either an ellipse ( . . . ) or a < snip > tag when editing a quote down to the minimum size necessary to provide context. Editing a Quote down to individual questions for giving individual answers to multiple questions within a single post is a good practice too. All required as much, or more, copying/pasting than it'll take to make a well edited context providing quote without using the old button.
If the threads become more compact/less visual noise, methinks we'll see MORE postings and gain in membership, not lose ground.
IMHO, get over it, reducing signal to noise ratios are generally a VERY GOOD THING! I've always tried to use either an ellipse ( . . . ) or a < snip > tag when editing a quote down to the minimum size necessary to provide context. Editing a Quote down to individual questions for giving individual answers to multiple questions within a single post is a good practice too. All required as much, or more, copying/pasting than it'll take to make a well edited context providing quote without using the old button.
If the threads become more compact/less visual noise, methinks we'll see MORE postings and gain in membership, not lose ground.
Quadraman
Well-known member
The thing is, though, that if nested quotes is the issue, how is someone supposed to easily follow the flow of the conversation? If I quote a message that replies to a prior message then the person reading my reply is only getting part of the conversation. Someone who looks only at the new entries may not realize something has already be said and post the same information that someone else did earlier in the topic. Now instead of nested quotes you have repetition of the same question/answer or information which is confusing. With all the replies quoted someone can easily see the entire conversation at a glance and not repeat what someone else has already said.
Trash80toHP_Mini
NIGHT STALKER
I don't see that as a problem, in the old days it was: RTFM!
Here, it's: RTFThread! If there are two or three snippets you really NEED to add to your post for context, go ahead, you can even nest the freakin' things if you really WANT to!
The fact that's it's done by manual input now will clear up a LOT of nested clutter and raise the signal to noise ratio significantly.
There's been far too little previewing & editing being done before hitting the Submit Button going on here for a long time. I do a lot of my .TXT entry in a .TXT editor OFFLINE, including the HTML tagging, just to save time for better things and reading the threads when I'm online.
I guess it's a matter of taste, but there has been a LOT of abuse of the quote function going on around here.
IMHO, naturally! :lisa:
Here, it's: RTFThread! If there are two or three snippets you really NEED to add to your post for context, go ahead, you can even nest the freakin' things if you really WANT to!
The fact that's it's done by manual input now will clear up a LOT of nested clutter and raise the signal to noise ratio significantly.
There's been far too little previewing & editing being done before hitting the Submit Button going on here for a long time. I do a lot of my .TXT entry in a .TXT editor OFFLINE, including the HTML tagging, just to save time for better things and reading the threads when I'm online.
I guess it's a matter of taste, but there has been a LOT of abuse of the quote function going on around here.
IMHO, naturally! :lisa:
Trash80toHP_Mini
NIGHT STALKER
Look at it this way: pretend this is the real internet again, not the WWW, where it was common practice to actually read through a newsgroup's posting threads and the signal to noise ratio was far better than it has become here with all the nested full length quotes.
As I said before, it is still possible to do nested quotes, it just takes a little work now, if it's not worth doing the work, it's probably not all that necessary. Copy, paste and tag anything absolutely necessary for context and then edit it down to bare bones yet again. Use of the preview button repeatedly until you're absolutely sure your post is clear, succinct, spelled correctly and maybe even check your grammar!
Furthermore, look at it the way a lurker or first time visitor would see it reading through repetitive, unnecessary nested quotage to get to actual content.
Again it's a matter of taste, but not just that, it is also one of planning for the long term health of the 68kMLA.
As an uninvolved (in the war room discussion) moderator, I'm getting tired of this thread and will padlock it within a day or two. So get your licks in ASAP!
I am in complete agreement with Osgeld and his JLPicard pic was spot on perfect commentary.
MidnightCommando
Well-known member
Shockingly, I'm not going to quote anyone here.
As a relatively recent and relatively uninvolved member of this nice little piece of the internet, my opinion probably means an infinitesimal amount, but I'm airing it anyway.
Back in the days of newsgroups, people /did/ read threads. People who used newsgroups also tended to be technical types anyway, or at least devoted enough to put up with the primitive user interface of tools like rn.
With the advent of the world wide web, and especially the Social Web (oh by the way, do we have a "like" button yet?
), people have been getting lazier and lazier. The design of functional, elegant, and consistent user interfaces allowed them to be lazy and still participate.
Removing features from the user interface that make it easy to create coherent posts (and easy to annoy other people) will without doubt reduce the snR on a board. It will also cut away a decent chunk of "potential signal" - those who perhaps would like to participate in the discussion but are daunted on one of many possible levels. (Believe it or not, quoting someone to cut into a thread a bit is actually somewhat useful as a device to avoid awkwardness!)
Sure, we care here enough to stick around. But will other people who might have worthwhile contributions to make? :sadmac:
Just my 2¢ on the matter ... well it would be if they hadn't phased out the copper coins ...
As a relatively recent and relatively uninvolved member of this nice little piece of the internet, my opinion probably means an infinitesimal amount, but I'm airing it anyway.
Back in the days of newsgroups, people /did/ read threads. People who used newsgroups also tended to be technical types anyway, or at least devoted enough to put up with the primitive user interface of tools like rn.
With the advent of the world wide web, and especially the Social Web (oh by the way, do we have a "like" button yet?
), people have been getting lazier and lazier. The design of functional, elegant, and consistent user interfaces allowed them to be lazy and still participate.Removing features from the user interface that make it easy to create coherent posts (and easy to annoy other people) will without doubt reduce the snR on a board. It will also cut away a decent chunk of "potential signal" - those who perhaps would like to participate in the discussion but are daunted on one of many possible levels. (Believe it or not, quoting someone to cut into a thread a bit is actually somewhat useful as a device to avoid awkwardness!)
Sure, we care here enough to stick around. But will other people who might have worthwhile contributions to make? :sadmac:
Just my 2¢ on the matter ... well it would be if they hadn't phased out the copper coins ...
Bunsen
Admin-Witchfinder-General
By reading it?
Exhibit A: fail.
Exhibit B: fail.
To spell it out for the hard of learning, here is Exhibit A with the quotespam removed. The misuse of quoting in that thread adds nothing to the clarity of the conversation - it is just screen cruft. You have copied the exact same information, twice, to no conceivable purpose.
You all need to re-familiarize yourselves with the forum rules, in particular the last clause.
Christopher
Well-known member
Yes but if we all PMed you about the same thing, wouldn't that get even more annoying then just blocks of quotes?
luddite
Host of RetroChallenge
I'm feeling a distinct sense of déja vu...Perhaps if people could easily edit their posts they could tidy up some of their quotes?
Anyway, for those who are stilling banging on about this, seriously it's not that hard to adapt to such a minor change as this – that's why we [mostly] have large brains and opposable thumbs...
Trash80toHP_Mini
NIGHT STALKER
Amen! Editing is easily done, RTFThread!
Whatever . . . tick . . . tick . . . tick . . . tick . . . Padlock Warning already issued! Finish this discussion off quickly!
. . . tick . . . tick . . . tick . . . tick . . . :lisa:
Whatever . . . tick . . . tick . . . tick . . . tick . . . Padlock Warning already issued! Finish this discussion off quickly!
. . . tick . . . tick . . . tick . . . tick . . . :lisa:
- Status
