Boards getting harder to read - too much unnecessary 'quoting'?

[mc2fool]

However, this way BobGe will not be notified that you have replied to him, whereas if you quoted him it would. However, I agree that excessive quotas do make it a bit harder to work out what the reply is about, but I have got used to it now.

Yes you can, as you can be automatically subscribed to anything you post to
ucp.php?i=ucp_prefs&mode=post

That won't notify BobGe when someone replies just to him, it'll notify him when anyone posts any reply in the thread, to anybody or to nobody.

The only way for a user to get notified when someone has replied specifically (and just) to them is for the respondent to use the quoting mechanism.

[pje16]

You still get notified though

[mc2fool]

You still get notified though

Yes, for each and every new post in the thread, irrespective of if they were replies to you or not. I can think of some threads where anyone using that would be getting dozens of notifications every day even though they'd only replied once.

That may be what some want but it is a far cry from the point that Seagles and others have made, that quoting (which is the topic of this thread) has the advantage that you will (can) be notified when a respondent has replied to your posts, without the excess noise of notifications for every reply in the thread.

[pje16]

Yes, for each and every new post in the thread

just for clarity there can be multiple replies and they are wrapped up in ONE notification
I note the subject of the post, hence my precise quote

[swill453]

Yes, for each and every new post in the thread

just for clarity there can be multiple replies and they are wrapped up in ONE notification

One notification per visit to the thread. As soon as you read it or otherwise clear the notification, you'll get notified AGAIN for more replies.

Scott.

[pje16]

Yes, I would expect that to happen

[XFool]

May I quote you on this?

Now I'm sure this will be controversial but I find that these boards getting harder and harder to read over time because of what appears to be a propensity amongst members to allow themselves too much freedom in the unnecessary use of the quoting function without what appears to be much thought or consideration.

For myself, and I do frequently reply by quoting other posts, I think I can claim that I do try, in effect, to already conform to your six points. I am aware of these same problems and try to edit my reply in such a way that what I feel are essential quotes are included, but no more. Following on, where no quote is really needed, I do sometimes using ellipsis...

I already do things like remove extra spaces/extra newlines after an ending '/quote', try to keep the sections quoted spaced simply and visually natural. I also remove peoples' ending signature or salutation - as 'unnecessary' - as the leading quote already shows who posted. I sometimes wonder if this may upset some. Nested quotes as necessary, sometimes they are needed just to make the main quote make sense etc.

It is for others to decide how successful, or otherwise, I am with all this.

[XFool]

A while back the level of nested quotes was increased, I think from 3 to 4. I said at the time I thought this was a bad idea, and I still do.

The trouble is, with only three quote levels, it was possible in some circumstances to find a reply did not entirely make sense - as some necessary context had gone AWOL.

Not common, but it could happen.

[XFool]

Being contrary. I dislike those that reply to a post up the thread but do not "quote" and you are left wondering what it is they are replying to without scrolling up until you can spot it.

Which is the point!

I regard quoting - if used 'correctly' - as clarity. Part of dealing with what may be an ongoing debate and putting your response in context. Otherwise it's just a jumble of individual, unrelatable random posts. Fine if all you want to do is let off steam - "I hate the Conservatives!" - or just take your prejudices for a walk round the block.

Mind you...

[csearle]

Personally I think it is often best to quote when replying to something specific, but almost never the whole bloody post. That is just downright lazy and makes it much more difficult for all concerned to follow the conversation because of all the irrelevant guff that is present in the quote.

Chris

[Lootman]

Personally I think it is often best to quote when replying to something specific, but almost never the whole bloody post. That is just downright lazy and makes it much more difficult for all concerned to follow the conversation because of all the irrelevant guff that is present in the quote.

I happen to agree but I do recall (on TMF as it happens) our late lamented Gengulphus objecting to the fact that I had quoted just a part of his post, rather than all of it, on the grounds that I had "removed context" and therefore was potentially misrepresenting his words.

No doubt you remember that his posts tended to be rather lengthy and so the temptation to quote just a part of them was overwhelming. But he appeared to regard editing them as something to be done only with consummate care and impeccable motive.

[AJC5001]

I happen to agree but I do recall (on TMF as it happens) our late lamented Gengulphus objecting to the fact that I had quoted just a part of his post, rather than all of it, on the grounds that I had "removed context" and therefore was potentially misrepresenting his words.

No doubt you remember that his posts tended to be rather lengthy and so the temptation to quote just a part of them was overwhelming. But he appeared to regard editing them as something to be done only with consummate care and impeccable motive.

My recollection is different. I don't think Gengulphus expected one to quote the whole of his posts, but in the cases I recall he had expanded on the point being discussed either in the same sentence or in the same paragraph.

Adrian

[BobGe]

Wondering if perhaps the various board mods could provide some board posting guidance?

(Again, no intent to point a finger, but by way of an example of the sort of thing I find a tough read viewtopic.php?f=54&t=29324 on a desktop platform, no idea how it is on a laptop, notebook, tablet or smartphone but I'm assuming not much better.)

[pje16]

I can post some advice
THINK before you post

[XFool]

May I just add to this? It is slightly off the original topic.

My pet peeve is unnecessarily proliferating threads. I at least try to make new posts in an existing thread, if a suitable one is available.
Once there was one, long running, Premium Bonds thread. Last time I looked we now seem to have three PB related threads.

[mc2fool]

May I just add to this? It is slightly off the original topic.

My pet peeve is unnecessarily proliferating threads. I at least try to make new posts in an existing thread, if a suitable one is available.
Once there was one, long running, Premium Bonds thread.

Yeah, too long; a monthly recurring stream of now over 1100 posts of folks jabbering on about what they'd won or not on how much of a holding each and every month, deluging out and making it overly tedious to follow in case some meaningful T&C type announcement might appear, and be spotted.

I purposely posted the "NS&I rates up, including Premium Bonds" post into a new thread precisely so it'd be easy to spot and find, esp. by those who'd given up on trudging through the forever growing "pub chatter" PB thread. Indeed, i think that thread should be renamed to Premium Bonds Winnings Chatter and moved to The Snug.

Merry Christmas -- and Bah Humbug!

[XFool]

Once there was one, long running, Premium Bonds thread.

Yeah, too long; a monthly recurring stream of now over 1100 posts of folks jabbering on about what they'd won or not on how much of a holding each and every month, deluging out and making it overly tedious to follow in case some meaningful T&C type announcement might appear, and be spotted.

So what a marvellous opportunity for a few novel posts on that board?

[XFool]

...More on this. (I see we now have two 'Fusion' threads on the Science board - Why?)

People have been complaining about "harder to read" boards and threads, well how much "harder" is it to read scattered threads? There might be an interesting past post in a thread that has disappeared from view - due to no updating - that you could miss. If you see multiple threads are you going to have to plough through all of them, rather than the much simpler task of reading the one? It fragments the topic - how is this a plus?

[csearle]

...More on this. (I see we now have two 'Fusion' threads on the Science board - Why?)

People have been complaining about "harder to read" boards and threads, well how much "harder" is it to read scattered threads? There might be an interesting past post in a thread that has disappeared from view - due to no updating - that you could miss. If you see multiple threads are you going to have to plough through all of them, rather than the much simpler task of reading the one? It fragments the topic - how is this a plus?

Maybe we should, er, merge them together to see if the result is worth the effort? C.