Perhaps so. So very few seem to know how to use quoting with any sense and elegance. It's a button that often is pushed mindlessly. It drives me crazy to follow a thread where someone makes a long, rambling post and someone quotes the entire thing only to have a response of "yes" or some other simple reply. No wonder threads can reach hundreds of pages. I bet the entire forum volume would be 20% less if bad quoting were removed.
At a minimum, the quote feature should require concscious input on the part of the quoter and not automatically quote an entire post. Thoughtful quoting seems like common sense to me, but like they say, common sense isn't really so common.
I know is the overall quality of the forum would improve greatly if overused quoting went away.
yoregano said: Perhaps so. So very few seem to know how to use quoting with any sense and elegance. It's a button that often is pushed mindlessly. It drives me crazy to follow a thread where someone makes a long, rambling post and someone quotes the entire thing only to have a response of "yes" or some other simple reply. No wonder threads can reach hundreds of pages. I bet the entire forum volume would be 20% less if bad quoting were removed.
At a minimum, the quote feature should require concscious input on the part of the quoter and not automatically quote an entire post. Thoughtful quoting seems like common sense to me, but like they say, common sense isn't really so common.
I know is the overall quality of the forum would improve greatly if overused quoting went away.
No.
So tempted to leave it at that However, it is often the best way to keep your response in context.
ETA: Now that I think about it.. I think it would be an interesting idea if the quoted area was somehow collapsed/hidden like an ignored user's reply is. Ofcourse it would be an option.. but it would save plenty of space on the length of the page.. and if the expansion of the hidden quoted text is done through AJAX, it would also save initial.. and maybe overall bandwidth.
MVP9596 said: yoregano said: Perhaps so. So very few seem to know how to use quoting with any sense and elegance. It's a button that often is pushed mindlessly. It drives me crazy to follow a thread where someone makes a long, rambling post and someone quotes the entire thing only to have a response of "yes" or some other simple reply. No wonder threads can reach hundreds of pages. I bet the entire forum volume would be 20% less if bad quoting were removed.
At a minimum, the quote feature should require concscious input on the part of the quoter and not automatically quote an entire post. Thoughtful quoting seems like common sense to me, but like they say, common sense isn't really so common.
I know is the overall quality of the forum would improve greatly if overused quoting went away.
No.
So tempted to leave it at that However, it is often the best way to keep your response in context.
MVP9596, yours is a rather uninspired reply, and from a staff member, too. Context? No, I don't need to reread a three paragraphs long post (as is often the case) to realize the context about what one is responding to. Why not at least limit the quote, as has been suggested? Perhaps only the first line is quoted automatically, followed by an ellipsis indicating text has been truncated. The aesthetics, bandwidth, and flow of a thread will absolutely be improved. One of the problems is that too many dopes hit the quote button for NO reason whatsoever when all they should do is simply state their point.
C'mon, let's raise the bar, just a little. I can't believe more people don't see some value in this.
TM1
piñata
posted: Oct. 17, 2008 @ 6:35a
Using quotes is the best way to preserve the original content of posts.
TM1 said: Using quotes is the best way to preserve the original content of posts. The original content already is preserved, in the original post. I don't understand your concern.
Are you defenders saying it makes sense to you to read long, verbose posts quoted and repeated over and over again throughout a thread? Surely something more efficient and succinct is better.
Yoregano, the content of the OP is NOT preserved for all subsequent viewers. Some posters enjoy editing the OP. Sometimes the edit is for innocuous spelling/grammar/clarification, sometimes it is to completely change the meaning of the thread or to attempt to prevent further ridicule for really stupid posts. Yes, the mods can see all edits, but we mere mortals cannot.
You may not appreciate the utility of quoting as it is currently implemented, but based on the few responses thus far yours is not a universal opinion. In other words, there IS value in the extended quoting implementation.
Quoting is the cornerstone of internet message boards. Without quoting, what would everyone have to talk about?
I've seen instances tlaxson has mentioned. Even if you took the "quote" feature away, what is to stop someone from doing a cut-and-paste of the full text of the person they are responding to into their reply?
SchlingBlade said: I've seen instances tlaxson has mentioned. Even if you took the "quote" feature away, what is to stop someone from doing a cut-and-paste of the full text of the person they are responding to into their reply? Ah, but that’s just it. A cut-and-paste means someone is at least taking a more conscious action, as opposed to clicking one button which automatically (and not necessarily sensibly) copies everything.
Alright, I understand the concern of editing posts and changing content. That still doesn’t mean mine isn’t also a valid concern. No one seems to be addressing the problem with repetition. I didn’t say that quoting has no value, but a quote should be used as a reference, not a complete reiteration.
Consider how footnotes in a report or book are used. The first time, a more descriptive notation is used. But subsequent refererces are shortened, i.e., ibid. There is good reason and sense in not repeating things verbatim over and over again.
yoregano said: TM1 said: Using quotes is the best way to preserve the original content of posts. The original content already is preserved, in the original post. I don't understand your concern.
No, the content is not preserved because the poster can go back and edit. However, once a post has been quoted, the text is preserved in that new quoting post.
Your problem isn't with the quote function but rather those that do not know how to use it properly. Just to pat myself on the back, notice that I only included the relevant portion of your post in my quote. If more people did that, your complaint would be moot.
EDIT: And after re-reading your post above, it looks like you get my point before I even made it.
kazanjig said: No, the content is not preserved because the poster can go back and edit. However, once a post has been quoted, the text is preserved in that new quoting post. Actually, notice the flaw in this statement, as the quoter has edited this post. Pardon my boldness, but as I demonstrated above, as long as one can edit his own post, he can edit everything, including quoted text.
It seems like there is an awful lot of concern over preservation of text, as if it is of sacred and historic value, like we’re always looking to catch someone in a “gotcha.” Forums are supposed to be more like conversation, a back and forth exchange, not the transcripts of a court trial. Look, I’m not claiming to have a perfect solution, but just some ideas. The way things are is certainly not the best overall method.
yoregano said: Perhaps so. So very few seem to know how to use quoting with any sense and elegance. It's a button that often is pushed mindlessly. It drives me crazy to follow a thread where someone makes a long, rambling post and someone quotes the entire thing only to have a response of "yes" or some other simple reply. No wonder threads can reach hundreds of pages. I bet the entire forum volume would be 20% less if bad quoting were removed.
At a minimum, the quote feature should require concscious input on the part of the quoter and not automatically quote an entire post. Thoughtful quoting seems like common sense to me, but like they say, common sense isn't really so common.
I know is the overall quality of the forum would improve greatly if overused quoting went away.
Preservation of text DOES matter. Do you follow Off Topic at all? Are you aware of the shenanigans of a few posters who post highly provocative threads then within minutes edit to something far less controversial? Preserving the OP can be very useful to hold the OP accountable. It also helps later readers understand the context of the thread and better form an opinion of the thread's usefulness, direction, etc and help them decide if/how to respond.
If the argument is that posters are improperly quoting (by quoting too much, or irrelevant info, or forgetting to close quote tags, etc), that is something that can be solved (to some extent) by education. The tools should not be removed to solve a behavior issue. Rather the root behavior should be addressed.
yoregano said: MVP9596, yours is a rather uninspired reply, and from a staff member, too. Context? No, I don't need to reread a three paragraphs long post (as is often the case) to realize the context about what one is responding to. Why not at least limit the quote, as has been suggested? Perhaps only the first line is quoted automatically, followed by an ellipsis indicating text has been truncated. The aesthetics, bandwidth, and flow of a thread will absolutely be improved. One of the problems is that too many dopes hit the quote button for NO reason whatsoever when all they should do is simply state their point.
C'mon, let's raise the bar, just a little. I can't believe more people don't see some value in this.
I guess I see it as a way to show who I'm talking to. Without me quoting you, I could be responding to anyone in the thread. If I want to answer a specific part of your post, I'll edit out all the rest and just leave that. Not sure why you consider it uninspired.
jayK
Senior Member - JayK
posted: Oct. 17, 2008 @ 10:51a
I agree that quoting should be removed...it should be replaced by multithreaded topics.
Sigh… this really isn't that hard. Some of these responses show that people just aren't getting it.
MVP9596, I know who you're talking to, and of course, quoting someone means that is who you are talking to or what point you are referencing. When I say "uninspired," I mean your response offers little in terms of commentary. You haven’t addressed any of my real points, you just seem to globally endorse the typical use of quoting in the forum. You may choose to edit what you quote, but far too many don't. I don’t need to read 50 lines of text just to see that someone is responding to a particular poster or thought.
tlaxson, you offer some good thoughts, but let's be honest: the OT forum practically begs to be full of inflammatory and outrageous content, so I do indeed suppose that people will continually try and pull shenanigans. My arguments require dealing with sane and rational people, which may be too much to ask for. And lastly, you lose some credibility for giving green to nomenclature’s one-word quip, which contributes nothing to the discussion.
BrianGa said: Maybe the quote button should only quote the last post, and not quote what the last post quoted.I second BrianGa's suggestion.
I also think that quoting does indeed help with understanding the context of a reply, especially when that reply is made numerous posts after the post it is intended to reply to. I can point to several examples where not having the quote would lessen the impact of the reply.
On the other hand, I can also point to several examples where having the quote is a complete waste of space and contributes nothing to the reply...
jayK
Senior Member - JayK
posted: Oct. 17, 2008 @ 3:25p
yoregano said: When I say "uninspired," I mean your response offers little in terms of commentary. You haven’t addressed any of my real points, you just seem to globally endorse the typical use of quoting in the forum.I thought he addressed the issue dead-on. If quotes are removed, how would you suggest posters indicate who they are replying to?
Incorporating some of the other ideas in this thread, one alternative would be to keep quoting, but automatically collapse all but the last post when a user quotes an entire conversation.
jayK said: yoregano said: When I say "uninspired," I mean your response offers little in terms of commentary. You haven’t addressed any of my real points, you just seem to globally endorse the typical use of quoting in the forum.I thought he addressed the issue dead-on. If quotes are removed, how would you suggest posters indicate who they are replying to? In that first post, MVP9596 pretty much just stated the obvious: quoting is a way to refer to someone. He didn't address any of my other points. For some strange reason, many so far glom on to my "shocking" thread title (What?! Remove quoting? How scandalous!) but can't seem to get to the whole of the argument (repetition, pointless quoting, lengthy posts, etc.). I never said quoting has to go, end of discussion, I offered some thoughts and ideas which, thankfully, a few have eventually discussed and added upon.
As far as how one might address someone without quotes, why not simply say their name? There are plenty of instances where this would work just fine. You don't have to restate fifty lines to make a simple reply.
yoregano said: can't seem to get to the whole of the argument (repetition, pointless quoting, lengthy posts, etc.). It seems it is not the technical ability to quote that you object to, but rather how quoting is being used. If that is an accurate assessment, it would be far better IMO to solve the problem you perceive to exist by educating posters rather than removing a tool that is not the root source of the issue.
Keep it as it is. Quoting was a problem on older computers that had trouble rapidly scrolling. Hasn't been an issue for years.
jayK
Senior Member - JayK
posted: Oct. 17, 2008 @ 11:26p
yoregano said: For some strange reason, many so far glom on to my "shocking" thread title (What?! Remove quoting? How scandalous!)What a surprise, you post a thread with a sensationalistic title, and people focus on the title. If you wanted to have a serious discussion, perhaps you shouldn't have gone with the "shocking" title. Something like "Can the Quote Feature Be Improved?" would have led to a much more beneficial conversation.
As far as how one might address someone without quotes, why not simply say their name? There are plenty of instances where this would work just fine. You don't have to restate fifty lines to make a simple reply.That still leaves the reply out of context. If someone is replying to a question from a different page, it can be very beneficial to see what that question was. Of course, you could argue that each person who replies should make sure to restate the question.
Pardon my boldness, but as I demonstrated above, as long as one can edit his own post, he can edit everything, including quoted text.You missed the point. If I quote you, then you go back and change what you said, everyone can see your original post in my quote, since you can't edit my post. While this isn't a primary benefit of quoting, it has come in handy a few times.
No, I don't need to reread a three paragraphs long post (as is often the case) to realize the context about what one is responding to.Sometimes it is necessary to read the entire original post to put a reply in context, especially if the reply picks apart arguments throughout the whole post. This happens quite a bit in FWF.
So what about your opinions on some of the other ideas brought up, such as collapsible quoting and multithreaded topics (which would eliminate the need to quote altogether)?
jayK said: yoregano said: For some strange reason, many so far glom on to my "shocking" thread title (What?! Remove quoting? How scandalous!)What a surprise, you post a thread with a sensationalistic title, and people focus on the title. If you wanted to have a serious discussion, perhaps you shouldn't have gone with the "shocking" title. Something like "Can the Quote Feature Be Improved?" would have led to a much more beneficial conversation.
As far as how one might address someone without quotes, why not simply say their name? There are plenty of instances where this would work just fine. You don't have to restate fifty lines to make a simple reply.That still leaves the reply out of context. If someone is replying to a question from a different page, it can be very beneficial to see what that question was. Of course, you could argue that each person who replies should make sure to restate the question.
Pardon my boldness, but as I demonstrated above, as long as one can edit his own post, he can edit everything, including quoted text.You missed the point. If I quote you, then you go back and change what you said, everyone can see your original post in my quote, since you can't edit my post. While this isn't a primary benefit of quoting, it has come in handy a few times.
No, I don't need to reread a three paragraphs long post (as is often the case) to realize the context about what one is responding to.Sometimes it is necessary to read the entire original post to put a reply in context, especially if the reply picks apart arguments throughout the whole post. This happens quite a bit in FWF.
So what about your opinions on some of the other ideas brought up, such as collapsible quoting and multithreaded topics (which would eliminate the need to quote altogether)?The above is an example of why I like the quoting feature. I can reply to specific parts of a post, and I can respond to different posters clearly. Nobody has to go up in the thread to see what I'm talking about; it's right there.
VBMcGB said: The above is an example of why I like the quoting feature. I can reply to specific parts of a post, and I can respond to different posters clearly. Nobody has to go up in the thread to see what I'm talking about; it's right there.
(Emphasis added above.) You are illustrating one of my points. By referring to specific parts of a post, you are intelligently and consciously editing, or at least considering so, when you quote someone else. But as I've said already, most people don't/won't be so thoughtful. The quote feature that automatically quotes everything—as it exists now—can be a rather clumsy tool. So can everyone please grasp my whole argument already? I'm not saying quoting has no purpose! I'm saying it needs improvement, ideally on both the part of the user as well as on the tool itself. Maybe some limiters to the quote feature, such as not automatically quoting more that ten or so lines at a time without prompting the user or some such, would help.
yoregano said: SchlingBlade said: Even if you took the "quote" feature away, what is to stop someone from doing a cut-and-paste of the full text of the person they are responding to into their reply?A cut-and-paste means someone is at least taking a more conscious action, as opposed to [quoting]...everything.
I don't think removing features, or making them more difficult in order to force deliberation is the answer, though. It treats the symptom, really.
It'd be interesting to see a quote feature which made quoting single lines or sections easier. Say, for instance, if you were given a copy of the post you were quoting, and could highlight a section and click 'quote selected' or 'quote all.' Easier than editing a post in a text box for some folks, I'm sure.
Regarding repetition, it could be neat to see nested quotes collapsed, even referencing their original posts! Outside of any other perceived or real benefits, it'd probably spare people the whole 1980's Star Wars Arcade Vector Graphics Tunnel Effect for massive chain quotes.
DevilMonkey said: It'd be interesting to see a quote feature which made quoting single lines or sections easier. Say, for instance, if you were given a copy of the post you were quoting, and could highlight a section and click 'quote selected' or 'quote all.' Easier than editing a post in a text box for some folks, I'm sure. Hey, I think you're on to something. So when can we expect these changes to be implemented?
Glad to see some interesting thoughts and ideas being exchanged. There's hope yet.
DevilMonkey said: It'd be interesting to see a quote feature which made quoting single lines or sections easier. Say, for instance, if you were given a copy of the post you were quoting, and could highlight a section and click 'quote selected' or 'quote all.' Easier than editing a post in a text box for some folks, I'm sure.No love for my idea? My idea (if it wasn't clear up above): Quoted text work just like posts from ignored users. They are hidden.. unless you click "show quoted text". That, IMO, would be a best of both worlds.
*If* there was an auto-"ignore" for quotes, i would hope it would be a setting we each could enable/disable. Makes no sense to me to have to click multiple times (in one post or several depending on how the block would be implemented) to be able to follow the context of the discussion. Others may love it, I would hate it.
If posters are finding the technical task of quoting difficult, then DevilMonkey's suggestion of a "select-a-quote" function make a lot of sense. That does exist somewhat currently through use of the quote button in the toolbar, but simplifying it may satisfy those who feel quotes are out of hand while also assisting those who want that help.
yoregano said: For some strange reason, many so far glom on to my "shocking" thread title (What?! Remove quoting? How scandalous!) jayK said: What a surprise, you post a thread with a sensationalistic title, and people focus on the title. If you wanted to have a serious discussion, perhaps you shouldn't have gone with the "shocking" title. Well, you illustrated a point, with an example that takes what I said out of context, by omitting the rest of what I said. Come now, I've shown better credibility than that by posting plenty of "serious discussion." It's up to the reader to decide whether or not he is going to address a whole argument or merely be reactionary. That said, I did modify my title as you now can tell.
yoregano said: As far as how one might address someone without quotes, why not simply say their name? There are plenty of instances where this would work just fine. You don't have to restate fifty lines to make a simple reply. jayK said: That still leaves the reply out of context. If someone is replying to a question from a different page, it can be very beneficial to see what that question was. Fair point—if indeed one is replying to a post far from the current post. If one is replying to a post immediately preceding or nearly so, I think it's relatively clear what one is responding to.
Kayk and tlaxson, I appreciate both of your inputs here. Again, glad to see to some good discussion.
KayK said: Quoted text work just like posts from ignored users. They are hidden.. unless you click "show quoted text". That, IMO, would be a best of both worlds. I think I kind of morphed it into "collapsing nested quotes." That's the cool thing about all these ideas, someone else picks em up and they take on a life of their own.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
