Multiple consecutive posting

[Jean Anthony]

This thread is for discussing the new thread in the Rules forum:
Multiple consecutive posting

In the spirit of the rule: Messages should be short. Do not post lengthy replies (including replies that consist largely of quotes from an earlier message) I'd like to suggest that no one be allowed to post multiple consecutive postings in order to get around the posting limit.

[Ani Ibi]

Originally Posted by Jean Anthony

In the spirit of the rule: Messages should be short. Do not post lengthy replies (including replies that consist largely of quotes from an earlier message)

I understand that you are trying to promote discussion and that sometimes folks confound discussion by posting lengthy messages or a series of consecutive lengthy messages.

But another way that folks confound discussion is by ignoring or forgetting or misunderstanding information posted in earlier messages.

To learn new material, it is frequently necessary to hear that material several times -- perhaps reworded each time or with new examples each time or with a new context each time.

Originally Posted by Jean Anthony

I'd like to suggest that no one be allowed to post multiple consecutive postings in order to get around the posting limit.

I don't think a rule helps here.

I think if folks are trying deliberately to get around the rules, they will be breaking other rules as well as a short-post rule.

There are imho other ways to get a discussion back on track without resorting to a short-post rule. A short-post rule may, in some instances, hamper rather than help communication among posters.

My

[Ani Ibi]

Also what if one poster needs to respond to several questions raised by several posters?

[Jean Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ani Ibi

I understand that you are trying to promote discussion and that sometimes folks confound discussion by posting lengthy messages or a series of consecutive lengthy messages.

But another way that folks confound discussion is by ignoring or forgetting or misunderstanding information posted in earlier messages.

To learn new material, it is frequently necessary to hear that material several times -- perhaps reworded each time or with new examples each time or with a new context each time.



I don't think a rule helps here.

I think if folks are trying deliberately to get around the rules, they will be breaking other rules as well as a short-post rule.

There are imho other ways to get a discussion back on track without resorting to a short-post rule. A short-post rule may, in some instances, hamper rather than help communication among posters.

My

What I am mainly talking about is a someone starting a thread with multiple posts quoting long sections of something for which they have a link. It just takes up space, besides being overwhelming to potential responders. It is much better to post a link, pick out the main subject to be discussed, post that, and let people respond.

But, I also think posting multiple consecutive posts is like beating others over the head with information. There's no need for that on a forum. If people want to read everything a poster has to say about a topic, let said poster write their tome elsewhere and link to that.

As for other problems, there are other rules to cover those and mods to mediate a solution to such difficulties. Having a rule about multiple consecutive posts will do nothing to add to or detract from other problems on the forum.

Ani Ibi: Also what if one poster needs to respond to several questions raised by several posters?

I do it by copying and pasting other responses into one post, as I did here. It's easy to do, and saves a lot of confusion, as well.

[BobP123]

I agree with this concept. It does take up unnecessary space when a simpler referback will suffice. As well as some of the graphics that gets repeated by the replier. That definitely slows down the download process and more noticeable when using a dial-up modem.

[CarolAnnSFO]

I agree with the rule. I don't think it's at all necessary to post page after page of material cut-and-pasted from some other web site, when a link and a summary would do just as well (and be a whole lot less annoying).

I opened up a thread once, and it consisted of at least eight maximum-length posts of solid text taken from some other site. There were no responses -- who on earth would want to read all that? Had the poster just posted a link and an explanation, I might have checked it out, but as it was, I took one look at all that verbiage and moved on to another thread.


Mudgie-in-training and freelance sparkle/coffee grinds sprinkler

[Joysong]

Originally Posted by CarolAnnSFO

I opened up a thread once, and it consisted of at least eight maximum-length posts of solid text taken from some other site. There were no responses -- who on earth would want to read all that? Had the poster just posted a link and an explanation, I might have checked it out, but as it was, I took one look at all that verbiage and moved on to another thread.

I have also seen these "mini-books" CarolAnn, and in one case the poster was losing an argument, so several pages of church documents were posted to prove what nobody had asked the person to prove. It's as if by much-speaking, they assume they will be believed. As in your example, there were no responses either.

Similarly, I didn't even read it, for I considered the motivation behind it.