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.
To enter a coupon code in your post please enter the following info:
Coupon Code:
Coupon Offer:
Merchant:
Expires (optional):
Restrictions (optional):
saving...
Quick Summary is created and edited by users like you... Add FAQ's, Links and other Relevant Information by clicking the edit button in the lower right hand corner of this message.
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 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.
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...
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.
