Short Posting

[choiberg]

I am noticing more and more posts in threads getting posted like something that belongs in a chatroom. Short one or two word posts or comments. Is there a way to implement something on the boards to require a 10 word minimum or 60 letter minimum on the post? Or is this something that we are just going to have to use our better judgment and ask ourselves before we post, \"Is this reply going to make a difference or just boost my post count?” I have found myself getting more frustrated in getting the messages that someone has replied to a post just to find out that it is worthless and just wasted my time.

I purposely did not put this thread in the Rant and Complain area because that is not my intention. I know after this is posted that it will still continue to happen. But I wasn\'t sure if anyone else sees it as a waste of time looking at these posts like I do and if AW would entertain this idea.

My feelings won\'t be hurt if I get shot down ;).

[Howard]

Completely.

[Howard]

:)

Yes, I do agree, and I\'ve made the point a number of times.

Pritch mentioned in another post about how many messages were just \"OK\" or \"I\'m downloading now\" or \"LOL\"...

I\'d like to implement something so that:

(*) It asks you to confirm that your answer is helpful and relevant and in the right thread, if its a short post.

(*) It deducts one from your post amount for each short post ;)

I don\'t have much time for implementation on the Board right now, but its on my list of things to attempt. Perhaps an easier one would be a message written just above the box for your new message that gives instructions on helpful posting...

Howard.

[Pritch]

Howard, you are not taking this at all seriously - that first post was much too short!

Surely you could have thought up some rambling, pointless answer to elaborately show your agreement to the comments that Choiberg made.

You are, a figurehead of the company and a person that everyone looks up to as a good example in this Forum. Choiberg obviously went to great effort choosing his words, and all you can say is \"completely\" - and then to totally show this post as also being pointless, you write a longer reply before I even get to post this! See, you can do it if you try.

Was this also long enough? ;)

[Howard]

Yup. :D

[Pritch]

... P.S. Who has written the longest post ever (here)?

[Howard]

Its a tricky one to do a search on, because the first post in a thread stores the info separately from the replies, however just searching on the replies.

However, in the top 10 longest posts, Iain has positions 1 and 2, then Larry, then me, then Iain again for positions 5, 6, 7 and 8, then Threephi, and then Iain again :)

So, Threephi has the longest *real* post of any of the testers.

Iain\'s posts are large because he includes large quotes from replies from the testers, and concatenates them to make one large (and hopefully coherent) reply.

Including large quoted sections seems to be common in some of the top 30 posts.

Interestingly Pritch, you don\'t appear in the top 30 longest posts.... but DBZ is in there at #27 ;) ;) :D
(And with a post without quotes too - a looong helpful post in the Insaniquarium forum.)

[Pritch]

Interestingly Pritch, you don\'t appear in the top 30 longest posts.... but DBZ is in there at #27 ;) ;) :D
(And with a post without quotes too - a looong helpful post in the Insaniquarium forum.)OF COURSE, that is because my posts are always factual, concise and clear (as mud sometimes)! :P Plus, I always select only the relevent parts of the quotes that I refer to, not the whole thing, as some do.

I am surprised that none of my Rooks Revenge posts got in there though - but then, if the whole content of my posts were included in Iains replies, then no wonder I get pushed down the ranking. :(

But as the saying goes, (as with the total number of posts), it\'s the quality that counts ;)

[Hiroshi]

This maybe a Looooooooooooooooooongest post. but Is this short?:P:P:P:P

[choiberg]

I was going to chime in with a quick Thank you for all the feedback to my suggestion, but Had already grabbed that punch line. I was wondering who was going to be the first th do that ;).

Had,

Since time prevents the worked needed to do this suggestion, we could just comment whenever someone makes a short post. Or, I like this one :), have the AW team on lookout for these short-posts whenver they are in a thread & have them delete them. Or if you feel that would take up too much of your employees time, give a couple of Beta Testers that you trust the ability to delete short posts when they are made (and have this decrease the post count) I think if it was made aware that there are people out there with this capability, it would start to stop quickly.

[DBZ-GOKU-]

Yeah, I have a long *good* and helpful post! :) But that is not the point. I like a lot of these ideas you have given out about the short post things (:(), thanks for the suggestion choiberg! Anyways, I would just like to pitch in my two cents.

I really don\'t like the idea of your posts being lost (your #), but I guess it motivates everyone to put in some good long quality posts. But, it will also raise the standards of what everyone has to post about too (which could be good). But, this raising of standards would also raise the standards on how you would earn medals/rosettes, wouldn\'t it? I mean, itr all of this were to take place, I think you should raise the standards of how hard it is to get one of those too (since everyone will have to post good and useful posts, according to what Had will be doing in the future).

I may not liek this, or other people may not either, but I really do think it is a good idea to raise the standards of everything, and not just the on posting.

Now, about choibergs last post, I like that idea a lot too. That would be pretty hard though, to make it so other people could delete them (that\'s not the hard part), but also make it lower their number. I mean, even when you delete posts, it does not lower our number (such as deleting old beta threads and such). So, what ever you do, you should make a choise. I suggest that you do choiberg\'s last idea, then it has less of a burden on you and the rest of the Astraware team.

Over all, all of these ideas here are great (sorry for repeating myself). I would also like to add that maybe you should make a area where you could post short posts, and not be accused. I think this would help us to just say what ever we want and how ever long we want (but also not have it count towards your post number). Which leads me to another idea about this whole situation.

You should make it so that anyone can post short posts, but make it so that it will not count towards their post number unless it reaches a certain world limit (such as 30 or so). This way you can post no matter what (without being \"harassed,\" ;)), and then you will not have mad beta testers for declining posts. Anyways, I like taht idea a lot, so tell me what you think. :)

[Pritch]

If a forum gets closed, it still exists but is just \'hidden\' - that means that your post could stays.
If you delete a post then that post is gone, including the post count from it. You can even try this at home kids, it\'s perfectly safe!

There is no mad drive for posts to be of a certain standard / length before being let in - if this is what you think, then I think you have misunderstood the point.

The point is avoiding pointless posts where people just feel the need to post:

:)
LOL!
Thanks
Downloading now...

or whatever - there is no for that - that\'s all :)

[hortonk]

When I \'thumb\' through my email at reply notices, I look to the subject line for clues as to what the reply is about...

I\'m as guilty as anyone for not including a subject line, but I\'ll resolve to start using more often and more effectively...

[Pritch]

More often than not, the thread is the subject.

I check the Astraware forum at least daily - as such I don\'t need an email to tell me that someone has posted something. The light bulb system tells me what is new as soon as I get there.

As such, the subject line is, as described, OPTIONAL!

[choiberg]

DBZ-,

I like your idea about posts not counting until they are 30 words or something. But that is still missing the point like Pritch pointed out, there really is no need for short posts like the examples he gave out. To take it a step further, Had has now given us the chatroom capability. This should be the place for short comments.

Hortonk,

I know what you mean, and I am guilty. The reason I haven\'t usually in the past is for the reasons Pritch said. The thread is the topic of the post. Since we post in mostly the same forums (PPC), I will make a better effort to add subjects to my post, but

[Howard]

Actually, there is *one* good reason for having the subject added when you write a reply, and this is because the notification email that goes out to anyone else does include within the text of it, the name of the replier and the subject they added (if any.)

I don\'t know about the rest of you, but I use both of these bits of information to determine whether I\'ll go and visit the thread right away, or wait until later :)

Howard.

[choiberg]

I do glance at them, but it doesn\'t deter me from looking at them since I usually haven\'t used a subject in the past.

[DBZ-GOKU-]

The reason taht I want to keep the ability to do short posts (and not lose a post #, but at the same time not counting until at least 30 words) is because sometiems you avhe to have a short post. What if you are asking a basic or complicated question that does not have very many words? Or, if you don\'t know what someone means, you should be able to just ask them a simple question.

Yes, I like the cahtroom a lot. But most the time I get on, there are usually only the same people on (BGB, for one). So, a lot of the times you may not get the person you want to. Plus, you probably don\'t want to be reading some long BS post just to ask some basic thing if you can\'t do short posts.

Anyways, it\'s just my side of the matter, but ehat ever happens will most likley be to the benefit of all of us. :)

[jael]

I like your idea about posts not counting until they are 30 words or something.

While I am not interested in the \"whose got the most posts, rosettes, medals, whatever\" competition that is raging here, there are those of us whose style is somewhat... terse. Short does not always mean without value. Sometimes even an <aol> Me, too! </aol> can be valuable to a developer to verify that a problem isn\'t confined to a single user or platform.

[choiberg]

I don\'t think this about competition, but it just gets fustrating to see one worders that hoenstly were not needed. Granted there are some situations that a quick yes or no will safice. But it looks like it\'s beyond that. So do we just want to be polite and say \"Avoid short posts unless absolutely necessary.\"

[jael]

So, what you\'re really objecting to is drivel of any length?

[threephi]

Its a tricky one to do a search on, because the first post in a thread stores the info separately from the replies, however just searching on the replies.

However, in the top 10 longest posts, Iain has positions 1 and 2, then Larry, then me, then Iain again for positions 5, 6, 7 and 8, then Threephi, and then Iain again :)

So, Threephi has the longest *real* post of any of the testers.I get the long-winded (amateur division) prize! Woo-hoo! (I think...)

I have laid down some whoppers, I know... I try to be concise, precise and complete when I give a bug report and when that involves nine or ten items the posts can get pretty big. I know there was one uber-post that I broke into two parts because it looked overlarge in notepad...

Anyway, regarding the discussion here, I think instituting a word count criterion for posts would be a mistake. It\'s disdainful of the power of the English language to say that posts that contain less than a designated number of words are necessarily inferior.

I try to post in the appropriate place and not take a thread off-topic, but I know that not everyone does. I don\'t consider it anything to get upset about (and in no way do I mean to imply that anyone here is getting \"upset\"). These boards, as with any community above a moderate size, will always have some members who pay less attention to the rules than others, so a certain amount of poor posting etiquette is to be expected.

The only way to really ensure quality posts and maintain order on these boards would be to appoint monitors.

[BigGoodBig]

Yes, I like the cahtroom a lot. But most the time I get on, there are usually only the same people on (BGB, for one).I hope that \'for one\' means, \'I met you once in the chatroom\' and not \'I always meet BGB in the chatroom\', because I only met you there once (maybe twice).

[DBZ-GOKU-]

Yeah, you were talking about how you\'ve been on alot and how no one ever gets on anymore.