Since I've been admonished for this recently, I thought I'd ask. Are there any circumstances in which it's acceptable to post twice in the same thread in succession?
Personally, I like to keep separate conversations separate, and reduce excessive quoting (since some of us don't seem to know how to edit/reduce quotes :poke:). Where's the happy-medium?
Try editing your post.
I will keep everything in the same post if it's one topic/conversation thread. I will post twice if there are two distinct conversations in the thread.
Post once, and once only. PM the rest. If you need to have a separate conversation than do an hr.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 13, 2018, 03:20:37 PM
Try editing your post.
Obviously, I know how to edit :rolleyes:
I also know how to edit
quotes to shorten them, something you should learn how to do.
Quote from: PatTheSplasher on January 13, 2018, 04:29:15 PM
Post once, and once only. PM the rest. If you need to have a separate conversation than do an hr.
Quite authoritative for only having been here two days :D Not that you're wrong, but dishing out commands isn't the best of ideas.
Quote from: Alps on January 13, 2018, 03:57:12 PM
I will keep everything in the same post if it's one topic/conversation thread. I will post twice if there are two distinct conversations in the thread.
Generally, I try to do the same, but the line of "distinct" gets a little fuzzy at times, especially when both conversations are related to the original topic.
Where did you double-post even?
QuoteAre there any circumstances in which it's acceptable to post twice in the same thread in succession?
In short succession, no. If it's been several hours or even a few days, perhaps, but even then the preference is to edit your last post unless there's a significant bit of new content to add to the thread. Where it becomes more acceptable is if it's been several days since the last post in a given thread, and you happened to have the last post.
Quote from: PatTheSplasher on January 13, 2018, 05:39:20 PM
Where did you double-post even?
I've double posted quite a few times. SSOWorld (an admin) merged the posts on the last two occurences, which is fine with me, obviously. One instance was in "Clinching counties!", reply 72.
Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2018, 05:41:49 PM
In short succession, no. If it's been several hours or even a few days, perhaps, but even then the preference is to edit your last post unless there's a significant bit of new content to add to the thread. Where it becomes more acceptable is if it's been several days since the last post in a given thread, and you happened to have the last post.
Right, because if you're reviving an old thread, you're probably discussing something new. And it requires a new post (not an edit) to bring the topic back into circulation, so to speak.
I was thinking of cases where there are multiple conversations going on, and you want to quote, say, three or more different users.
Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2018, 05:41:49 PM
QuoteAre there any circumstances in which it's acceptable to post twice in the same thread in succession?
In short succession, no. If it's been several hours or even a few days, perhaps, but even then the preference is to edit your last post unless there's a significant bit of new content to add to the thread. Where it becomes more acceptable is if it's been several days since the last post in a given thread, and you happened to have the last post.
The rule of thumb I've used in the "been a few days and I had the last post" situation is that if what I want to say is closely related to the previous post, I'll edit the previous post, usually by adding the material to the end with "Edited several days later to add:" or some similar notation. If the material is not closely related to the previous post, I'll make a new post. Obviously this sort of thing will vary depending on the sort of thread. Broad-based threads, such as "Virginia," will obviously lend themselves much more to a post on a different matter than would be the case in narrower threads, such as the off-topic board thread about the highest you've been inside a building or structure.
The moderators have never admonished me about double-posting, so I presume this sort of approach is reasonable.
In other words, I don't think there's a bright-line rule that double-posting is never appropriate, though I do think it's clear that it's definitely not always appropriate.
Quote from: webny99 on January 13, 2018, 06:20:31 PM
....
I was thinking of cases where there are multiple conversations going on, and you want to quote, say, three or more different users.
If I want to reply to multiple users in one post, I usually use the "hr" tag (between brackets, of course) to insert a horizontal line to provide a visual break, as I've done in this post to help separate my comment about froggie's points from my reply to you. This is what the final point in PatTheSplasher's comment was suggesting, but given the tone of that post and the way the comment was phrased I can understand why it might not have been clear.
^ Of course, in this case, your reply to Froggie was meant mostly for my benefit anyways :-D
But I see your point, and I gather that, in general, editing (or just using "insert quote") is usually preferred. I'm OK with that, as long as everyone else is OK with editing out the irrelevant portions of my response when they reply. (I already admonished RGT upthread for not doing this.)
And, yes, I knew what Pat meant by hr, just chose to respond to the more surprising aspect of his/her post :D
It does depend on the situation. I usually put all my quotations into one post unless it is more than three or so. 1995hoo's suggestion is even better, but what I usually do is separate two distinct conversations with two or three spaces (and typically one space between a quotation and the reply directly to it). I like doing this post-organization technique to make more coherent posts and such (doing different spacings at different locations). However, usually, if I have more than three quotations I am replying to, I will create more than one consecutive post, because then it may start to be getting quite long. I definitely would think that bumping a thread (with significant information or new material, of course, not just something stupid and insignificant, or to say that you bumped the thread) would justify a consecutive post, if that same person had the last post in that thread before the bump. Another thing, is, if you are creating a very large OP in a thread (like I did yesterday) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21994.0), it is probably recommended to make several consecutive individual posts, especially if you are posting a large amount of pictures (like me). In my thread example, it looks like I created 5 separate consecutive posts for the OP (original post). The first was an introduction and a lot of historical information. Posts 2, 3, and 4 were for displaying all of the photos - with each post having 10 pictures each, following the Forum Guidelines. The 5th post had two extra pictures, and the conclusion and all of my references and such.
So yes, it completely depends on the situation. Sometimes it is perfectly fine to have consecutive posts, but in other situations, that is not the case, and the moderators may merge your posts. So just pay attention to the situation, and you'll be good.
;-) :thumbsup:
Quote from: webny99 on January 13, 2018, 06:49:51 PM
^ Of course, in this case, your reply to Froggie was meant mostly for my benefit anyways :-D
But I see your point, and I gather that, in general, editing (or just using "insert quote") is usually preferred. I'm OK with that, as long as everyone else is OK with editing out the irrelevant portions of my response when they reply. (I already admonished RGT upthread for not doing this.)
And, yes, I knew what Pat meant by hr, just chose to respond to the more surprising aspect of his/her post :D
I didn't realize at the time that PatTheSplasher was a Marf sockpuppet!
Anyway, the one thought I have as to editing the quotes is that on the one hand, it's damn annoying when there is a long string of nested quotes, but on the other hand, it can also be a pain in the arse to edit the quotes when posting via mobile device (not just a phone, either; editing the quotes on an iPad can be difficult, due mainly to the peculiar lack of arrow keys).
Second edit: BTW, regarding my "reply to froggie," notice how my prior post referred to it as "my comment about froggie's points" because, as you correctly note, I wasn't really replying to him per se.
Edited to add: Thanks to whichever moderator put this back here. I tried to post it here and it wound up in Marf's troll threads. Not sure what happened.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 13, 2018, 07:02:57 PM
Edited to add: Thanks to whichever moderator put this back here. I tried to post it here and it wound up in Marf's troll threads. Not sure what happened.
Yeah, I was working on splitting the topic and you just happened to post this right as I split the 'garbage' part out.
That was...interesting.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 13, 2018, 07:02:57 PM
I didn't realize at the time that PatTheSplasher was a Marf sockpuppet!
Quote from: Takumi on January 13, 2018, 07:20:54 PM
That was...interesting.
Oh my! What did I miss? :wow:
When I re-logged in, I had a new PM from Pat (similar, if not verbatim, to his current profile message) which was... shocking, to say the least. I thought something was a little strange about Pat, so I saw all this and all the pieces started falling into place! How did he get found out? (I assume the "garbage posts" mentioned above are related in some way?)
QuoteAnyway, the one thought I have as to editing the quotes is that on the one hand, it's damn annoying when there is a long string of nested quotes, but on the other hand, it can also be a pain in the arse to edit the quotes when posting via mobile device (not just a phone, either; editing the quotes on an iPad can be difficult, due mainly to the peculiar lack of arrow keys).
Totally agree here that there's no easy win-win. When using a computer, I always highlight>backspace, but with a phone it's painfully nitpicky and time consuming. For that reason, I do try to use a computer when possible.
Quote from: webny99 on January 13, 2018, 08:05:03 PM
Oh my! What did I miss? :wow:
When I re-logged in, I had a new PM from Pat (similar, if not verbatim, to his current profile message) which was... shocking, to say the least. I thought something was a little strange about Pat, so I saw all this and all the pieces started falling into place! How did he get found out? (I assume the "garbage posts" mentioned above are related in some way?)
He created about 10 threads that all had the exact same content, revealing that Pat was Marf, and that he was a troll since he was 6 years old, and that he has his own long term abuse page on Wikipedia. (You have to be really dedicated to get on that list.)
I'm calling today, 1/13/18, the Day of Chaos.
Quote from: 1 on January 13, 2018, 08:07:50 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 13, 2018, 08:05:03 PM
Oh my! What did I miss? :wow:
When I re-logged in, I had a new PM from Pat (similar, if not verbatim, to his current profile message) which was... shocking, to say the least. I thought something was a little strange about Pat, so I saw all this and all the pieces started falling into place! How did he get found out? (I assume the "garbage posts" mentioned above are related in some way?)
He created about 10 threads that all had the exact same content, revealing that Pat was Marf, and that he was a troll since he was 6 years old, and that he has his own long term abuse page on Wikipedia. (You have to be really dedicated to get on that list.)
I'm calling today, 1/13/18, the Day of Chaos.
Whoa. Part of that, I did not realize until now. I thought he just had unfavorable behavior that got him banned in all of these places. I didn't know that he was deliberately trolling us - that I did not catch. I also had no idea what a long term abuse page meant. Yikes! :wow:
This stuff has indeed been crazy to say the least. :-o :crazy:
Quote from: 1 on January 13, 2018, 08:07:50 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 13, 2018, 08:05:03 PM
Oh my! What did I miss? :wow:
When I re-logged in, I had a new PM from Pat (similar, if not verbatim, to his current profile message) which was... shocking, to say the least. I thought something was a little strange about Pat, so I saw all this and all the pieces started falling into place! How did he get found out? (I assume the "garbage posts" mentioned above are related in some way?)
He created about 10 threads that all had the exact same content, revealing that Pat was Marf, and that he was a troll since he was 6 years old, and that he has his own long term abuse page on Wikipedia. (You have to be really dedicated to get on that list.)
I'm calling today, 1/13/18, the Day of Chaos.
Holy crow! Guess he knew his time was short! Do you have a link to the Wikipedia page?
(I assume that his trolling
on this forum only began last year with the Marf account?)
It's funny, upon reflection, that both Pat and Marf had been giving me commands like they owned the place. And that me, being a supposed troll, set the whole thing off :-D
I'm also curious why the mods allowed the Pat account. Of course they have no obligation to give us details, but I am very interested, given my unique role in the whole matter :hmmm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/ItsLassieTime
It's an internal project page, not an article.
I have no idea what happened, but I'm guessing that Marf made it to where the other account was simply harder to detect that it was actually him. Pat was in the name, I think the age was 16 instead of 15, I think the location was Connecticut instead of Maine, and more.
I had no idea it was Marf at first (I genuinely thought it was a new member who was a completely different person, and I gave him a warm welcome as such), but looking back, there was a similar atmosphere that was being emitted from both accounts, so I guess now that we know the truth, it can't be too surprising.
Regarding what you missed, among other things, Marf–who was obviously given a ban yesterday that we know from other posts was a two-month ban–came back using another account named "Marf207" that had apparently been created some time ago; he asked whether he could use that account during his ban. Obviously, the moderators said "no," and I'm guessing he got a permanent ban as a result. So then this guy PatTheSplasher appeared. Initially he appeared harmless, but then he posted a thread on the "Welcome" side titled "Fuck you." That thread contained a post that he copied, verbatim, in a bunch of other threads, including this one, in which he said, in essence (this is paraphrased), "I know I'm banned permanently, so fuck you, I'm a Marf sockpuppet and I've been banned from these other sites [series of links]."
What got bizarre was that this thread got split apart when Marf posted the fuck-you post here. That's what I was getting at in my exchange with rickmast67 about a post being moved.
Huh. Everything actually seems to add up, in a weird, and crazy, sort of way. I'm going to add a little salute to my profile "I survived Day of Chaos 2018" or something along those lines :-P
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 13, 2018, 08:31:22 PM
I have no idea what happened, but I'm guessing that Marf made it to where the other account was simply harder to detect that it was actually him. Pat was in the name, I think the age was 16 instead of 15, I think the location was Connecticut instead of Maine, and more.
I had no idea it was Marf at first (I genuinely thought it was a new member who was a completely different person, and I gave him a warm welcome as such), but looking back, there was a similar atmosphere that was being emitted from both accounts, so I guess now that we know the truth, it can't be too surprising.
Same here. He actually did a decent job with PatTheSplasher, I thought a few things were weird, but just chalked it up to him being a newbie. All adds up now :spin:
(Side note, so you don't think I'm ignoring you: I got your PM, but for some reason, I can't send PM's from my phone. If this persists, I'll contact one of the admin. Anyways, I will respond, in detail, when I have computer access, which may not be until Monday :))
Quote from: webny99 on January 13, 2018, 09:29:27 PM
(Side note, so you don't think I'm ignoring you: I got your PM, but for some reason, I can't send PM's from my phone. If this persists, I'll contact one of the admin. Anyways, I will respond, in detail, when I have computer access, which may not be until Monday :))
That's perfectly fine. I didn't think you were ignoring me, I just thought you had already gotten all of the information you needed.
All good. :thumbsup:
Quote from: webny99 on January 13, 2018, 02:13:15 PM
Since I've been admonished for this recently, I thought I'd ask. Are there any circumstances in which it's acceptable to post twice in the same thread in succession?
The times I do it is when it is a really long post and I need to divide it up for size or orginizational purposes.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 14, 2018, 12:58:04 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 13, 2018, 02:13:15 PM
Since I've been admonished for this recently, I thought I'd ask. Are there any circumstances in which it's acceptable to post twice in the same thread in succession?
The times I do it is when it is a really long post and I need to divide it up for size or orginizational purposes.
One comparison that may help: It's a "should" not, not a "shall" not. (MUTCD) If you have a legitimate reason to double post where it does not make sense to combine, we tend to let those slide.
webny99 - yes, I have combined posts you have made, you are not the only one that got this and I am not the only one who would do so. I do take into account many factors when doing so - these were summed up by posts above.
Wow. I missed a bunch of this, which sounds like something I'd like to read the next time I get the urge to see a virtual train wreck occurring.
Has the aforementioned "f you" thread been deleted?
Quote from: hbelkins on January 14, 2018, 02:54:49 PM
Wow. I missed a bunch of this, which sounds like something I'd like to read the next time I get the urge to see a virtual train wreck occurring.
Has the aforementioned "f you" thread been deleted?
There were about 10 of them with identical content, and they were all deleted within 10 minutes of being posted.
Quote from: 1 on January 13, 2018, 08:26:09 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/ItsLassieTime
It's an internal project page, not an article.
What an asshole. :wow:
Sounds lime someone needs his internet access removed for a very long time.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 14, 2018, 02:54:49 PM
Wow. I missed a bunch of this, which sounds like something I'd like to read the next time I get the urge to see a virtual train wreck occurring.
Has the aforementioned "f you" thread been deleted?
I'm sure you've noticed that thread is gone, but yes, it was on the "Welcome" side (perfect place for a "Fuck you" thread, huh?) and it was deleted fairly promptly.
It's mildly interesting to me that a banned user's posts can survive even though said user is removed from the "members" list. I assume the technical reason has something to do with the user's listing being suppressed, rather than actually deleted, and that the posts survive because of how it would mess up threads if they were deleted.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 15, 2018, 12:02:31 PM
It's mildly interesting to me that a banned user's posts can survive even though said user is removed from the "members" list. I assume the technical reason has something to do with the user's listing being suppressed, rather than actually deleted, and that the posts survive because of how it would mess up threads if they were deleted.
Banned users' posts have to survive, as most bans are temporary.
However, even if an account is outright deleted (which has only happened once, and was by request), the posts survive, although the username is no longer a link, and no information like signature or post count remains.
I occasionally double-post. I generally ask myself, Has enough time passed that people have already read my original post? If the answer is yes, then I just post again. Perhaps I should amend my usual practice.
Quote from: kphoger on January 15, 2018, 01:23:03 PM
I occasionally double-post. I generally ask myself, Has enough time passed that people have already read my original post? If the answer is yes, then I just post again. Perhaps I should amend my usual practice.
For me, it depends whether it's something minor (like a typo or change of wording) or something major (like adding new content about a different topic). I tend to do new posts only for the latter case (obviously), but even then, there are times when editing seems to be preferred.
I've double-posted when a thread is so active that by the time I'm responding to one response, other responses have been posted. In some of those instances, I've simply posted what I was writing, and then double-posted (and sometimes not even, because another response came thru in-between my responses), but make sure I quote what I'm responding to.
It's also harder to go back and quote multiple responses using a cell phone, so double-posting is less cumbersome, although more obnoxious.
In all cases, I try to limit it to rare circumstances.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 16, 2018, 08:54:38 AM
I've double-posted when a thread is so active that by the time I'm responding to one response, other responses have been posted. In some of those instances, I've simply posted what I was writing, and then double-posted (and sometimes not even, because another response came thru in-between my responses), but make sure I quote what I'm responding to.
I have had this happen a few times. Particularly when I am the OP and have questions to answer about what qualifies for your thread, etc. Of course, if someone else posted in between, it no longer qualifies as a double-post :spin:
With that said, I think double-posting is, for that reason, more acceptable in very active threads.
Off topic discussion has been removed.
My fault.
Are filler posts allowed if say you want to get a big post for orginizational purposes on the next page but you can't start a new thread for it? If I do it, I would only do it if I was one or 2 posts away from a new page being created. Other option is a table of contents type issue where you have all significant postings on the first post listed under reply x xXxX thing.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 23, 2018, 01:32:21 AM
Are filler posts allowed if say you want to get a big post for orginizational purposes on the next page but you can't start a new thread for it? If I do it, I would only do it if I was one or 2 posts away from a new page being created. Other option is a table of contents type issue where you have all significant postings on the first post listed under reply x xXxX thing.
No. No that is not allowed, don't do that or your filler posts will be deleted and you will be issued a formal warning.
Regarding Hurricane Rex's comment, something to note is that just because to you it appears there will be a new page in the thread doesn't mean everyone gets a new page. Tapatalk users get a different number of posts per page than regular browser users, for example (I just looked at this thread in Tapatalk and it came up as four pages, whereas it shows up as one page in Safari–I'm typing this on my phone). Even in a web browser, the forum options let you change the number of posts that display per page, so not everyone will see the same thing. The forum default is 25 posts per page, but you can display a maximum of 50 or as few as 5. (I display the maximum to reduce the number of clicks I have to make and the number of pages I have to load.)
Thus, rather than referring to a page number within a thread, it's best to refer to the reply number if for whatever reason linking or quoting the prior post is not an option.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 23, 2018, 09:06:01 AM
Regarding Hurricane Rex's comment, something to note is that just because to you it appears there will be a new page in the thread doesn't mean everyone gets a new page. Tapatalk users get a different number of posts per page than regular browser users, for example (I just looked at this thread in Tapatalk and it came up as four pages, whereas it shows up as one page in Safari–I'm typing this on my phone). Even in a web browser, the forum options let you change the number of posts that display per page, so not everyone will see the same thing. The forum default is 25 posts per page, but you can display a maximum of 50 or as few as 5. (I display the maximum to reduce the number of clicks I have to make and the number of pages I have to load.)
I was thinking along similar lines. I personally show 50 replies per page as well. I just don't really see what the advantage is of having the first post on a page anyways.
Quote from: webny99 on January 23, 2018, 09:12:56 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 23, 2018, 09:06:01 AM
Regarding Hurricane Rex's comment, something to note is that just because to you it appears there will be a new page in the thread doesn't mean everyone gets a new page. Tapatalk users get a different number of posts per page than regular browser users, for example (I just looked at this thread in Tapatalk and it came up as four pages, whereas it shows up as one page in Safari–I'm typing this on my phone). Even in a web browser, the forum options let you change the number of posts that display per page, so not everyone will see the same thing. The forum default is 25 posts per page, but you can display a maximum of 50 or as few as 5. (I display the maximum to reduce the number of clicks I have to make and the number of pages I have to load.)
I was thinking along similar lines. I personally show 50 replies per page as well. I just don't really see what the advantage is of having the first post on a page anyways.
More people will see it.
Quote from: 1 on January 23, 2018, 09:17:55 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 23, 2018, 09:12:56 AM
I just don't really see what the advantage is of having the first post on a page anyways.
More people will see it.
How so? :confused:
I almost always skip to the bottom of a page and read up, and besides, people have all different page lengths.
It's also possible to get new posts to show at the top instead of the bottom, though I've not used this setting myself.
Quote from: webny99 on January 23, 2018, 09:21:46 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 23, 2018, 09:17:55 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 23, 2018, 09:12:56 AM
I just don't really see what the advantage is of having the first post on a page anyways.
More people will see it.
How so? :confused:
I almost always skip to the bottom of a page and read up, and besides, people have all different page lengths.
It's also possible to get new posts to show at the top instead of the bottom, though I've not used this setting myself.
If your post is the last post of a page, it will only be seen until the next person posts. If your post is the first post of a page, you have 24 more posts before nobody will look at it anymore.
Quote from: 1 on January 23, 2018, 09:26:00 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 23, 2018, 09:21:46 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 23, 2018, 09:17:55 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 23, 2018, 09:12:56 AM
I just don't really see what the advantage is of having the first post on a page anyways.
More people will see it.
How so? :confused:
I almost always skip to the bottom of a page and read up, and besides, people have all different page lengths.
It's also possible to get new posts to show at the top instead of the bottom, though I've not used this setting myself.
If your post is the last post of a page, it will only be seen until the next person posts. If your post is the first post of a page, you have 24 more posts before nobody will look at it anymore.
Well, I sort of see your point there. But that assumes that people will
only read the most recent page. That's hardly the case. Especially right when a new page starts, you often need to read previous pages anyways, just to follow the discussion.
A few times I have had the sense one of my posts got "buried" because it was the last post on a page. (1995hoo makes a valid observation, but I suspect the majority of users are not changing the default posts-per-page value and in any case the majority of options for this value are integrally divisible by 25.) But even so, I don't do filler posts. As Webny99 notes, anyone who follows a thread with the intent of contributing to it should be clicking back for unread posts, through multiple pages if necessary, to be sure he or she isn't duplicating someone else's comments.
Quote from: 1 on January 23, 2018, 09:26:00 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 23, 2018, 09:21:46 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 23, 2018, 09:17:55 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 23, 2018, 09:12:56 AM
I just don't really see what the advantage is of having the first post on a page anyways.
More people will see it.
How so? :confused:
I almost always skip to the bottom of a page and read up, and besides, people have all different page lengths.
It's also possible to get new posts to show at the top instead of the bottom, though I've not used this setting myself.
If your post is the last post of a page, it will only be seen until the next person posts. If your post is the first post of a page, you have 24 more posts before nobody will look at it anymore.
I just click the "new" button to see unread posts in a thread, so your post will only be seen by me until the next person posts no matter where it is.
I put new posts on the top, so I always see the most recent 25 in order. Thus the distinction is meaningless for me. Still, if you post meaningless content just to post, that is against forum rules and you will pay consequences.
Table of contents it is then (don't have to add posts this way, you know what thread I'm talking about). Thank you for the advice.