Double posting

[Uchiha Daisuke]

Somehow I think that young man's viagra years are far,far away yet.

(Yup, I've officially drifted this thread into the gutter...for old times sake).

If you have a sustained erection lasting for years, please consult your undertaker.

[ThotFullGuy]

I'm not sure I understand the issue here. Obviously duplicate(ish) threads are a problem, like three separate threads on the same topic, as are "yeah, me too" kind of threads. Are you saying that each person should only post once in each in each thread?

I'm glad you asked that. I was actually wondering the same thing.

The way I typically use the forum is I click on "New Posts" and see what posts have been made since I last checked. Now, let's say that Pike, for example said something about the Star Trek movie early in the Star Trek GWC podcast thread. And then a couple weeks later he had something else to say about it.
If he just Edited his original post and added to it, then I probably would never see what he added.
I would much prefer he add a new post to the thread so that when I click on "New Posts" it will show up as a new post and I won't miss it.

[NothingButheRain]

Since this is the first and only forum I've paticipated in, I have a question-

What's the "statute of limitation" on double-posting? Meaning, when can you back up on a post, a few hours later? a few days later? a week? Or once you post, that's it until someone else posts after you?

[BadgerSpoon]

I took Solai to mean something like this, if I could use myself as an example. I was on a top ten thread or something like that. Nobody else seemed to be on at the time. Within 10, 15 minutes, as I thot of wildly humorous (well, that's debatable) things to post, I posted them. I ended up with about 12 separate posts, one after the other, which I easily could have edited into one post as I went along, therefore taking up less space, etc.

OK, I can see that, but what about multiple replies? Long multi-quotes seem more problematic (for some) than individual responses. But are either really that big of an issue here?

BTW, what is the reason behind the double posting etiquette? Is it to avoid unnatural increases in post counts? Just curious...

I must say, I'm unfamiliar with this point of etiquette.

As my unnatural post count no doubt makes clear.

I'm glad you asked that. I was actually wondering the same thing.

The way I typically use the forum is I click on "New Posts" and see what posts have been made since I last checked. Now, let's say that Pike, for example said something about the Star Trek movie early in the Star Trek GWC podcast thread. And then a couple weeks later he had something else to say about it.
If he just Edited his original post and added to it, then I probably would never see what he added.
I would much prefer he add a new post to the thread so that when I click on "New Posts" it will show up as a new post and I won't miss it.

Agreed. It seems to me that going back to edit old posts rather than adding a new one would force us to have to read the entire thread from the beginning each time, just in case of additions. Or am I overthinking this?

Since this is the first and only forum I've paticipated in, I have a question-

What's the "statute of limitation" on double-posting? Meaning, when can you back up on a post, a few hours later? a few days later? a week? Or once you post, that's it until someone else posts after you?

An excellent question. Whatever "statute of limitations" there is would have to be an essentially arbitrary and (IMO) unnecessary restriction. To be honest, the lack of such "rules" is one of the things that I've always thot set GWC apart from lesser forums.

[Solai]

I took Solai to mean something like this, if I could use myself as an example. I was on a top ten thread or something like that. Nobody else seemed to be on at the time. Within 10, 15 minutes, as I thot of wildly humorous (well, that's debatable) things to post, I posted them. I ended up with about 12 separate posts, one after the other, which I easily could have edited into one post as I went along, therefore taking up less space, etc.

Is that what you're getting at, S ?

Yep, that summarizes it quite nicely.

BTW, what is the reason behind the double posting etiquette? Is it to avoid unnatural increases in post counts? Just curious...

To be completely honest, I don't know. It was a rule I learned a long time ago and took it to be law. This is the reason I started this discussion because it could be that this approach no longer makes sense, or this community doesn't mind it.

Part of me sees the logic of having multi-quote responses to several posts, and another part of me sees the logic of a binary one-to-one response for organizational reasons. I have never said one way is right or wrong, I am more interested in what others think and have a discussion about it.

And yes, just to make a point, I am going to double post. Pike, Badger, if you want to merge these two posts, knock yourselves out.

[Phil]

I must say, I'm unfamiliar with this point of etiquette.

As my unnatural post count no doubt makes clear.

Don't sweat it. If my time here has taught me anything, it's that it is pointless to direct questions concerning etiquette to you.

[Phil]

To be completely honest, I don't know. It was a rule I learned a long time ago and took it to be law. This is the reason I started this discussion because it could be that this approach no longer makes sense, or this community doesn't mind it.

Part of me sees the logic of having multi-quote responses to several posts, and another part of me sees the logic of a binary one-to-one response for organizational reasons. I have never said one way is right or wrong, I am more interested in what others think and have a discussion about it.

And yes, just to make a point, I am going to double post. Pike, Badger, if you want to merge these two posts, knock yourselves out.

Okay, now I'm about to risk a double post, because Solai responded to me while I was in the middle of a wise[sorrybarb] remark aimed at Badger.

If I'm being poled, I'd say for you guys to not worry too much about it. Clearly, keeping threads organized, non-duplicated and on topic (yeah, right) is enough of a job and does more to keep this place manageable. Double posts haven't yet been the source of a pet-peeve for me as long as the posts have some modicum of worth. If the concern is the time it takes to scroll through a thread then excessive signature files would appear to be a bigger culprit. My $0.02.

Edit (to avoid a double post ): BTW, is there an easy way to retroactively multquote in a previously posted post?

[BadgerSpoon]

Don't sweat it. If my time here has taught me anything, it's that it is pointless to direct questions concerning etiquette to you.

Um, thanks. I think.

Okay, now I'm about to risk a double post, because Solai responded to me while I was in the middle of a wise[sorrybarb] remark aimed at Badger.

If I'm being poled,

IYKWIM sorry. had to be done.

I'd say for you guys to not worry too much about it. Clearly, keeping threads organized, non-duplicated and on topic (yeah, right) is enough of a job and does more to keep this place manageable. Double posts haven't yet been the source of a pet-peeve for me as long as the posts have some modicum of worth. If the concern is the time it takes to scroll through a thread then excessive signature files would appear to be a bigger culprit. My $0.02.

Definitely have to agree there. I tend not to find scrolling to be much of a hardship, unless it's side-to-side.

Edit (to avoid a double post ): BTW, is there an easy way to retroactively multquote in a previously posted post?

Yes, just ask one of the friendly moderators to merge them for you. Without mod or admin access, you can edit your own posts but can't delete or merge them.

[Solai]

If I'm being poled, I'd say for you guys to not worry too much about it. Clearly, keeping threads organized, non-duplicated and on topic (yeah, right) is enough of a job and does more to keep this place manageable. Double posts haven't yet been the source of a pet-peeve for me as long as the posts have some modicum of worth. If the concern is the time it takes to scroll through a thread then excessive signature files would appear to be a bigger culprit. My $0.02.

That's a good point, and when I think about it, it could be that the "double-posting is a no-no" could have stemmed from people having gigantic siggys

Edit (to avoid a double post ): BTW, is there an easy way to retroactively multquote in a previously posted post?

Yes, respond to a post as you would normally, copy the quoted text with proper tags and cancel. Goto your post and edit. Paste the text in and respond.

[Phil]

IYKWIM sorry. had to be done.

I specifically left that hanging with you in mind...