Forum etiquette - double-posting vs separating ideas?

[Mhaeric]

[Alleo]

Where the latter has removed the context to two different replies, but you can still follow the thread. So it doesn't look like you are responding to that user, but rather trying to shut them up. If you can not provide the context from which you are responding, then don't be upset when that user thinks you're being rude.

I do try to put the quote into my post but honestly I also often just answer without a single quote at all and just a @name. The person that I am answering to should at least still know what they posted themselves so I dont see much of a problem with that. (And everyone else should honestly try to follow the whole thread and not only the last few posts thus they should know the older posts too) All I am saying is that it would be good to understand that you might find it rude but others dont and that maybe instead of thinking that they see the poster as an idiot or something like that, that they simple have other reasons to snip their answers. If they go and answer questions of the poster or using good arguments, that should kinda show that they are taking them seriously.

I dont like when people go, take my post and "tear" it apart. (Like putting each of my sentence in a new quote) It feels strange but I also know that most dont do this out of some bad reasons or to be rude or to truly tear it apart but more to give each sentence an answer. So I could take it as bad just because I feel that way or just be fine with it because I know that I might be a bit strange with that and others just simply do that for other reasons that are not meant as bad.

And is it truly rude when you can just click on the blue arrow and be directed to the post?

[KisaiTenshi]

I do try to put the quote into my post but honestly I also often just answer without a single quote at all and just a @name. The person that I am answering to should at least still know what they posted themselves so I dont see much of a problem with that. (And everyone else should honestly try to follow the whole thread and not only the last few posts thus they should know the older posts too) All I am saying is that it would be good to understand that you might find it rude but others dont and that maybe instead of thinking that they see the poster as an idiot or something like that, that they simple have other reasons to snip their answers. If they go and answer questions of the poster or using good arguments, that should kinda show that they are taking them seriously.

I dont like when people go, take my post and "tear" it apart. (Like putting each of my sentence in a new quote) It feels strange but I also know that most dont do this out of some bad reasons or to be rude or to truly tear it apart but more to give each sentence an answer. So I could take it as bad just because I feel that way or just be fine with it because I know that I might be a bit strange with that and others just simply do that for other reasons that are not meant as bad.

And is it truly rude when you can just click on the blue arrow and be directed to the post?

As I've stated before, the "blue arrow" does not always go back to the post from which the context is needed. Consider the following:

(PS. throwing in another thing while I start a discussion on forum formatting - personally it bugs me a little when people just replace quoted text with "snip" - I feel like at least a one-or-two word summary of the deleted text would be helpful, especially if that person has made multiple posts in the conversation. What do others think on that?)

Now which post was this from? If you said "the beginning of the thread" you're right, however, the argument you and I are having, is from this:

I also agree that 'snip' is the worst thing. I don't know or remember what someone's replying to, especially if it's four pages back. Keeping context with quotes is the idea, and just replacing it with some word does nothing for me. I don't want to go back to the quoted post just to see what someone should have included in the first place.

Which post is that? The second post on this thread. Yet my post is little more than a "I agree" with Canadane, and why.

Bingo. Only trim out the parts you're not responding to. Doing "-snip-" or changing the text other than bolding/italics, is insulting the quoted poster in a way that putting your hands over someone's mouth while they are talking is.

Yet...

*snip*

Snip removes the context from the reply.

*snip*

Snip removes the order of the reply.

*snip*

Is disrespectful to the person who originally wrote the post that you're snipping.

*snip*

Snipping removes the order of the conversation if you're required to click the button to figure out which post it's in response to.

*snip*

The character limit is bypasssed by editing the post. Hence copy to notepad, and copy back works, even if it's clunky.

*snip*

One should not need to click on the blue button to find the context of a post, especially for mobile users who don't have a lot of screen real estate in the first place.

*snip*

A huge wall of text is better than none. Besides you can always edit the post another time to delete the part you don't need.

*snip*

Mobile doesn't excuse it.

I agree that KisaiTenshi may be overstating it by saying that replacing a quote with "snip" is equivalent to "what you said means nothing" - at least I *think* that's the specific quote you're responding to, but I can't actually tell because you didn't leave the quoted text there.

However, I don't consider completely removing the text to give any "reading convenience" - instead it just makes me uncertain exactly what part of the conversation a quoter is responding to, and I may have to stop and read back to work out the context.

And this is the result.

Now, do you really want to click 8 "snips" to figure out which ones I've responded to, or the more likely thing is you'll just zip past those responses instead?

[KaivaC]

snip

So, you actually took the time to multi-quote just to simply make a question like that? That's real dedication there, but I have a much better question: why do you feel like being a special snowflake by continuing this whole thing about 'snip'?

[347SPECTRE]

People snip when they're quoting a wall of text. It's to help streamline posts, which initially have a 1,000 character limit.
And personally, I'm not entirely sure how it's disrespectful.


As I had stated earlier, why is this a thing?

[reiichi]

As I had stated earlier, why is this a thing?

So people can purposely construct the nightmare post two above yours. (Possibly on a previous page for the handful of users who learned they can change the default posts per page).

Now, do you really want to click 8 "snips" to figure out which ones I've responded to, or the more likely thing is you'll just zip past those responses instead?

More than likely, people will make the assumption you were replying to ALL of them. Which you were. but if you have time to exceed the post limit just to make a petty post about your personal preferences when there are merits t o both sides, I'm not sure why people keep feeding the thread. :/

[HyoMinPark]

People snip when they're quoting a wall of text. It's to help streamline posts, which initially have a 1,000 character limit.

The character limit is exactly why I use “snip” on the rare occasions that I do. I use the full site on mobile, but it can be a real pain to navigate sometimes on a phone, so if I am typing something on the fly, I snip. On desktop, I still snip out irrelevant parts of a post if I am opting not to reply to them, so as there is no ambiguity about what I am addressing in my response. I don’t really consider it disrespectful to “snip” something; it’s more disrespectful to “snip” it, and then just blatantly not even answer what was said; because it tells me the person didn’t even take the time to read what was said.

As for why it’s a thing, well some people just like to be seen as right, I suppose. /shrug

[Alleo]

Now, do you really want to click 8 "snips" to figure out which ones I've responded to, or the more likely thing is you'll just zip past those responses instead?

Honestly? I have never seen a post in this forum that has that many snips in one post so even if I can understand your view a bit, still does not make it much of a problem for me. Most of the posts I see are trimmed down parts of a post and if someone uses snip I am kinda sure that most of the time they only do it to one quote, thus making it quite easy to know which one they are talking about.

But this will be my last post about this. No need to further this discussion since its probably just a way each one of us view these things and would just go round and round.

[Dualgunner]

I do try to put the quote into my post but honestly I also often just answer without a single quote at all and just a @name. The person that I am answering to should at least still know what they posted themselves so I dont see much of a problem with that. (And everyone else should honestly try to follow the whole thread and not only the last few posts thus they should know the older posts too) All I am saying is that it would be good to understand that you might find it rude but others dont and that maybe instead of thinking that they see the poster as an idiot or something like that, that they simple have other reasons to snip their answers. If they go and answer questions of the poster or using good arguments, that should kinda show that they are taking them seriously.

I dont like when people go, take my post and "tear" it apart. (Like putting each of my sentence in a new quote) It feels strange but I also know that most dont do this out of some bad reasons or to be rude or to truly tear it apart but more to give each sentence an answer. So I could take it as bad just because I feel that way or just be fine with it because I know that I might be a bit strange with that and others just simply do that for other reasons that are not meant as bad.

And is it truly rude when you can just click on the blue arrow and be directed to the post?

As I've stated before, the "blue arrow" does not always go back to the post from which the context is needed. Consider the following:

This is something I've been wondering for a while when making posts in this forum. Because of the "like post" feature I feel like it makes sense to split up my replies to discusions where we are talking about more than one topic. Otherwise if I talk about two separate things in the one post, people might want to 'like' my response to one of those statements but disagree with the other?

But on the other hand, general forum etiquette (across the Internet) is "don't double-post", although that's been established long before the era of Facebook 'likes'.

So which is better? Double-posts or multiple-thoughts posts? Am I just overthinking this?


(PS. throwing in another thing while I start a discussion on forum formatting - personally it bugs me a little when people just replace quoted text with "snip" - I feel like at least a one-or-two word summary of the deleted text would be helpful, especially if that person has made multiple posts in the conversation. What do others think on that?)

((SIDE NOTE: Not quoting the whole post? How rude, Kisai.))

Now which post was this from? If you said "the beginning of the thread" you're right, however, the argument you and I are having, is from this:

If they're two rather varied thoughts in the same topic, just make a second post.
You already seem to be aware of editing past 1000 characters so you're leagues ahead of some.

I also agree that 'snip' is the worst thing. I don't know or remember what someone's replying to, especially if it's four pages back. Keeping context with quotes is the idea, and just replacing it with some word does nothing for me. I don't want to go back to the quoted post just to see what someone should have included in the first place.

Which post is that? The second post on this thread. Yet my post is little more than a "I agree" with Canadane, and why.

This is something I've been wondering for a while when making posts in this forum. Because of the "like post" feature I feel like it makes sense to split up my replies to discusions where we are talking about more than one topic. Otherwise if I talk about two separate things in the one post, people might want to 'like' my response to one of those statements but disagree with the other?

But on the other hand, general forum etiquette (across the Internet) is "don't double-post", although that's been established long before the era of Facebook 'likes'.

So which is better? Double-posts or multiple-thoughts posts? Am I just overthinking this?


(PS. throwing in another thing while I start a discussion on forum formatting - personally it bugs me a little when people just replace quoted text with "snip" - I feel like at least a one-or-two word summary of the deleted text would be helpful, especially if that person has made multiple posts in the conversation. What do others think on that?)

Likes don't mean anything except for the Topic poster.

In a thread, you should consolidate all your replies into one post on the same page to avoid three issues:
1. This is not a chatroom.
2. The maximum posts you can do per 24 hour window is about 10.
3. The maximum character limit is 1000 characters.

As long as a thread has not progressed to another page, keep editing the post to respond to anything previous to your post. This is what I do up to three or so other replies.

If they're two rather varied thoughts in the same topic, just make a second post.
You already seem to be aware of editing past 1000 characters so you're leagues ahead of some.

I also agree that 'snip' is the worst thing. I don't know or remember what someone's replying to, especially if it's four pages back. Keeping context with quotes is the idea, and just replacing it with some word does nothing for me. I don't want to go back to the quoted post just to see what someone should have included in the first place.

Bingo. Only trim out the parts you're not responding to. Doing "-snip-" or changing the text other than bolding/italics, is insulting the quoted poster in a way that putting your hands over someone's mouth while they are talking is.

Yet...

I use the 'snip' approach since it's convenient and I assume that if somebody is truly engaged in a thread then they'll be reading through it before responding themselves. With the frustrating limitations in place on this forum I don't tend to go as in-depth in my replies as I would elsewhere.

Snip removes the context from the reply.

Multiple response posts are prolly fine, but at that point, I'd probably just multi-quote in one larger post if they're t least semi-related. If they're two completely different topics, it sounds like a good time to branch to a new topic/thread for the other discussion. (Although the moderators here can't really be expected to assist with that given limited staff and high post volume.)

Regarding snipping quotes, I generally do that if I'm responding to a post that's on the same page, and perhaps only 1-2 posts above, when limited by character limits. (These forums are annoying, but not the only offender. And there are times where bypassing it with an edit is a pain, like on mobile.) Usually, I default to chopping up posts into the sections I'd want to respond to otherwise.

Snip removes the order of the reply.

If they're two rather varied thoughts in the same topic, just make a second post.
You already seem to be aware of editing past 1000 characters so you're leagues ahead of some.

I also agree that 'snip' is the worst thing. I don't know or remember what someone's replying to, especially if it's four pages back. Keeping context with quotes is the idea, and just replacing it with some word does nothing for me. I don't want to go back to the quoted post just to see what someone should have included in the first place.

Regarding snipping, quotes have a blue arrows button that links directly back to the post in question. If you want to talk "disrespect" then respect the quoted poster enough to click that blue button to go back and read their post in the full context it was originally posted in.

It certainly doesn’t give you the right to generalize the lot of them. Personally, I post on forums because I’m bored. When I’m not bored, I’m typically not on them. Again, not out of some need to be validated by strangers on the internet.

Yet, somehow you personally took offense to a generalization that is very true for this forum, and all unmoderated/loosely moderated forums on the internet, because you felt that I was attacking you, when I was describing the behavior of people who add nothing to the conversation, because there is no moderator.

When there is low moderation, the amount of ****-posting goes up. Those are posts that add nothing to the thread, but exist entirely to inflate the users presence. That is just one thing people do, and it's very popular to do in Western and Eastern forums when the moderators are asleep, or absent. Prior to this concept, as I described before "forum games" exist where people post to the same thread, over and over with one-liners, it's entire purpose to inflate the user's post count, and visibility on the site by being the last poster to every forum game thread. This forum doesn't have this because it's against the terms of service to do it, and the posts-per-day limit lowers the rate at which the post inflation happens.

It's equal to saying "what you said meant nothing, thus you're an idiot"

So is refusing to click on the magical blue "To Post" button.

Snipping removes the order of the conversation if you're required to click the button to figure out which post it's in response to.

I use snip quotes if I have to. Since I'm on mobile, I can't edit my posts; snipping ensures I can get my opinion out without having to worry (much) about character limit.

The character limit is bypasssed by editing the post. Hence copy to notepad, and copy back works, even if it's clunky.

I use snip quotes if I have to. Since I'm on mobile, I can't edit my posts; snipping ensures I can get my opinion out without having to worry (much) about character limit.

This forum, on mobile predates most actual mobile usability changes. In fact, when I once visited the site on my mobile phone, I thought I was on the wrong site due to the lack of any customization of the mobile theme.

It's still rude to -snip- a quoted post, and if you can't trim it from a mobile device, copy the entire quoted section to the phone's text editor, write the post there, post "mobile10char." or something as a place holder, edit everything in the text editor, stick the bold tags around the segment you're replying to, and then copy that back from the text editor.

I disagree. If it's rude to snip a post then it is also rude to not click on the blue button that takes you back to the post in question.

One should not need to click on the blue button to find the context of a post, especially for mobile users who don't have a lot of screen real estate in the first place.

Yet, somehow you personally took offense to a generalization that is very true for this forum, and all unmoderated/loosely moderated forums on the internet, because you felt that I was attacking you, when I was describing the behavior of people who add nothing to the conversation, because there is no moderator.

When there is low moderation, the amount of ****-posting goes up. Those are posts that add nothing to the thread, but exist entirely to inflate the users presence. That is just one thing people do, and it's very popular to do in Western and Eastern forums when the moderators are asleep, or absent. Prior to this concept, as I described before "forum games" exist where people post to the same thread, over and over with one-liners, it's entire purpose to inflate the user's post count, and visibility on the site by being the last poster to every forum game thread. This forum doesn't have this because it's against the terms of service to do it, and the posts-per-day limit lowers the rate at which the post inflation happens.



It's equal to saying "what you said meant nothing, thus you're an idiot"

Umm... No, it does not. It's for reading convenience. When those of us use mobile, snipping posts allows us to avoid hitting the post limit since we can't edit on mobile. Sometimes, don't want to have a huge wall of texts when posting a reply, so it's snipped. It's not rude at all. That's a huge reach you've made there.

A huge wall of text is better than none. Besides you can always edit the post another time to delete the part you don't need.

What? Why is it rude the snip posts? This is the second time somebody said it. How is that rude? I do it because I'm responding directly to the person I snipped. This feels like an overly sensitive reaction to a minor thing.

Mobile doesn't excuse it.

I use snip quotes if I have to. Since I'm on mobile, I can't edit my posts; snipping ensures I can get my opinion out without having to worry (much) about character limit.

I understand that people might need to delete a lengthy quote to save space (so they don't have to do fiddly mobile editing or whatever) - though as I was saying, in my original post, I would find it much easier to follow if you replaced it with a very short summary of what the person was talking about, rather than the word "snip". Eg. if I replaced your quote with "re. snipping for length".

Umm... No, it does not. It's for reading convenience. When those of us use mobile, snipping posts allows us to avoid hitting the post limit since we can't edit on mobile. Sometimes, don't want to have a huge wall of texts when posting a reply, so it's snipped. It's not rude at all. That's a huge reach you've made there.

I agree that KisaiTenshi may be overstating it by saying that replacing a quote with "snip" is equivalent to "what you said means nothing" - at least I *think* that's the specific quote you're responding to, but I can't actually tell because you didn't leave the quoted text there.

However, I don't consider completely removing the text to give any "reading convenience" - instead it just makes me uncertain exactly what part of the conversation a quoter is responding to, and I may have to stop and read back to work out the context.

Regarding snipping, quotes have a blue arrows button that links directly back to the post in question. If you want to talk "disrespect" then respect the quoted poster enough to click that blue button to go back and read their post in the full context it was originally posted in.

Having to move up and down the discussion to follow the context of quotes doesn't seem like the best solution to me. It's a backup option if the responder has deleted the quote text, or in a long thread where the context may be a long way back - but it makes for a much easier 'flow' of reading down the page if you've got the text (or a summary of it) there to keep track of the conversation, or which of several conversations your post is adding to.

As long as you don't edit posts in order to reply to something later in the thread, you're good in my book. Nothing disrupts a conversation flow more than someone replying in a previous post that has already been replied to. The person you're talking to will likely have no clue that you responded to them, and people who read it all after the fact have to piece together the conversation order.

Oh goodness, I've noticed people do that a few times and I find it so confusing. Post efficiency is one thing, but editing a post to add a quote-and-response to something that is further down the page puts it all out-of-order.

And this is the result.

Now, do you really want to click 8 "snips" to figure out which ones I've responded to, or the more likely thing is you'll just zip past those responses instead?

And this is the result. Please tell me you hung around to read that whole mess, took me 20 minutes to put together. Had to even put rules on it, only going as deep as three quotes in since snipping anything for any reason and getting rid of any context is rude.

Sorry about my rudeness :P But really it just means I could go even further than this.

TL;DR? Too bad, snipping is rude. Better get ALL that context.

Nah but for real, the point is your post was garbled and jarbled even if you didn't snip everybody, Kisai.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

And this is the result.

Now, do you really want to click 8 "snips" to figure out which ones I've responded to, or the more likely thing is you'll just zip past those responses instead?

I am far more likely to pay attention to snips than the example Dual provided. Generally, you can gauge the conversation based on the response—with the option to go back to the original if you feel you may be missing details. Quoting the entirety of every argument made, from every person leads to a massive white wall which hurts my eyes.

All that aside. Who made you forum authority? When did we elect you to decide what is and isn't "proper forum etiquette"?