Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SSOWorld]

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.

[hbelkins]

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?

[1]

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.

[Brandon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/ItsLassieTime

It's an internal project page, not an article.

What an asshole. 

Sounds lime someone needs his internet access removed for a very long time.

[1995hoo]

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.

[1]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[webny99]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[webny99]

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 

With that said, I think double-posting is, for that reason, more acceptable in very active threads.

[Alps]

Off topic discussion has been removed.

[webny99]

My fault.

[Hurricane Rex]

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.

[Alps]

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.

[1995hoo]

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.

[webny99]

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.

[1]

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.

[webny99]

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? 
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.

[1]

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? 
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.

[webny99]

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? 
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.

[J N Winkler]

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.

[vdeane]

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? 
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.

[Alps]

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.

[Hurricane Rex]

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.