my opinions on thread starting etiquette
 

what follows is my opinion. OPINION.

If you're going to start a thread...

If I want a news article, I'll check CNN's front page. I don't need you to quote an article, or link it, give it a catchy thread title, and expect me to read it and comment on it.

If you want to discuss something, take the fucking time....expend the effort... to say what you're thinking in your own goddamned words. I'm not following any links that have no substantive context in the opening post of a thread.

It's as annoying to me as those asswipe news reporters that interview athletes by saying....."The opening drive of the fourth quarter...." And expecting the athlete to do his job for him.

It's not enough to rename a news story you read and post it. If you want to do that, you'd better express your opinion of what happened.

maybe there should be a current events thread for the link-compulsive among us. then if there was something to discuss, someone with a clue could start a thread about it and do a tangent link to that.

that covers current events threads.

with respect to the rest..... meh. I like threads that ask unusual questions. I like game threads. i like when people share intimate things with us. I respect people that are honest about their lives and have the skill with the english language to make me feel what they are feeling.

what's your opinion?

How can anyone agree or disagree with your take on a situation unless they have the same information you do? Wouldn't that compel you to make that information available to them to review for themselves?
No mater how much you write to explain the situation, it will contain your bias unless you're just reporting and have no opinion.... or you're lecturing like tw.

I agree with LJ have said as much before. This isn't fark. And a link in and of itself isn't a thread.

and how can they agree or disagree if you don't exfuckingspress your opinion? i'm all about sharing the source of your info. you gotta do both

A link by itself says "I found this interesting enough to share with you. But not interesting enough to share my opinion of it with you."

I got plenty of links. Fark, digg, memeorandum, tech memeorandum, hell theweblist.net lists ALL of them. Every single one of them had someone sharing it. What's interesting is what we think of 'em.

I won't click on a link in a thread that provides NO clue what it's about.

However, a sentence or two (including the title) that explains why the poster thinks it may be interesting is sufficient for me to decide whether I want to follow through. Extensive re-quoting or discussion isn't necessary.

Generally, I don't open links in a starter post that is nondescript. There are; however, those who will open links in nondescript posts (curiosity killed the cat); so, I let them screen the links for me. I may revisit such a thread if it has generated sufficient interest in the form of subsequent posts (from which I may glean the gist of the linked material). Then if I'm interested, I'll open the links for full disclosure. It's a time saving technique. :2cents:

Agreed.

Amen. We've come to expect better here. It's a community standards thing.

I really don't care what you want LJ.
You bitch about the link, others bitch about posting the article, bla, bla, bla... so what?

:cool: this community has standards?

In general, if I'm interested in the subject matter I'd rather read the source article and form my own opinion.

One thing I do object to, is not identifying the source, especially when quoting and not providing the link--the author, the website, etc. Credit should be given where credit is due.

Good grief. "Others complain about posting the article?" The whole point of the internet is to connect things such that we don't need multiple copies. And as if that wasn't enough, then there's that pesky copyright law making it illegal (we already covered unnecesarry) to reproduce it. Maybe you should link an article about what happens to people who violate copyright law.

There are three ways to initiate a discussion about an article that someone copyrighted:

1. Post a link without so much as a word of comment in which case nobody knows why the hell you posted it and we all get the impression that you just want to see how much polarity you can generate; or

2. Post the entire copyrighted article and get UT's ass in trouble; or

3. Post a link, maybe an interesting excerpt then add some commentary to initiate the discussion. If the article is not interesting enough for you to share a word or two in a thread YOU started then why even bother bringing it to our attention? Its amazing how you struggle to either understand or appreciate why anyone can have a problem with this.

Its a simple thing and despite your attempt to make it all about you it isn't all about you. Its about anybody. And everybody.

Maybe I'll start a thread called This Building. When you click on it, there will be a link. When you click the link it will take you to a picture of a building. I won't tell anyone why I started the thread. What building it is. How it was made, Who works in it. What used to be there before the building was built. Who designed it. What it just sold for. Who just bought it. Whether it is Feng Shui compliant. What is hidden in the basement. Who died there. When they are going to demolish it.

But I was really hoping it would start an interesting conversation that I can join in after everyone discloses first how they feel about it.

Yay! That's what I've been waiting for since I started posting!

When starting a thread, always make sure your pinky is extended. If you are wearing white gloves, it is considered gauche to remove them mid-sentence. Women's skirts should be mid-length, while gentlemen's coats should remained buttoned except after seating. In some cultures it is considered a compliment to belch heartily after a meal; check with your concierge to ascertain protocol in your particular thread.

I agree that some indication of what the poster is thinking is helpful, but in my opinion, it's better to start threads-period- than worry about etiquette. If no one is interested in it, it dies. Oh well.

I forgot one: It is unfashionable to quickly post after a previous poster posted a post that was positively prankish, thus relegating said post to the end of a page that no one will probably ever go back to and furthering the demise of a great source of humor and insight, and downright jocularity. :rolleyes:

see my pinky extended?

no, wait . . . that's not my pinky!

:angel:

:p

And that's not my bellybutton. :biglaugha

Before I post a new thread about something, I usually search to see if it will fit in with a thread that already exists. It's my own little way of trying to keep the place neat and organized.

No doubt in my mind. You do live by that rule. :D

yes, I do, and I'm not being facetious. I think new threads keep the place lively and moving forward.

but, er . . . I may be in the minority on that. And I'm still a relative newbie, so feel to spank me.

Please.

I like this the best, too. I'm not a fan of the lonely link--a little preview or relevant excerpts are more inviting. And some personal commentary gives the post a "raison d'etre."

Please see here, and here.
:)

People coming here from work have a right to be leery of clicking a blind link. Their employers software may flag something you think is harmless, putting them in deep shit.

True. Those links I posted above just link to other cellar posts. I guess you can see that in that little info bar on the bottom of the screen when you run your cursor over it. Is it OK to do that?

Hey, that's a pretty cool tip, Shawnee.

I agree--a "blind" link is the equivalent of spam email. If I have done this in the past, I apologize.

Sure you can do that, just be aware that a whole lot of people won't click those links.

well, you can't expect even well-fleshed out threads or links to be clicked by everyone, because not everyone has the same interests. I probably won't click on politics links, even with the most cogent argument or provocative questions, because I have about as much interest in politics as in goats.

Okay, I have more interest in goats.

The point is, people may be interested but put off by links, for fear of setting off flags.

er, flags? Like -- Old Glory? Don't Tread on Me? the Union Jack?

{off topic} Is there a way to have the last post from the previous page appear also as the first post of the next page? I sometimes won't post if the post number will be a multiple of 15, which I think is the default setting, because I don't want to leave an orphan post.

My god, I had no idea people were so concerned about being noticed...

My pages cut at 50 posts.

But what's the point of posting if no one is going to read it? I could just keep the thought in my head and save myself the trouble of typing it. That's the fine distinction between having a conversation and talking to yourself.

Sometimes I post stuff just as an outlet. I don't really care if people read it or not, and it matters less to me if they comment or not.

I think you'll find that if people read a thread from start to finish, or from the last post they read on a thread, they'll read them all regardless of where on the page they are though.

I must admit I never take into a consideration whether a post will be an "orphan" or not. I don't expect people to understand that my words are all precious pearls.

yeah... i fucken hate that too.

i really don't care if you care what i want, Nancy. I wasn't bitching about you.

If they have already read the rest of the thread vBulletin will take them to the last page. If they don't read to the last page it's their loss.

Lumberjim's quote (sorry, I fucked up the quote thingy): "I like threads that ask unusual questions. I like game threads. i like when people share intimate things with us. I respect people that are honest about their lives and have the skill with the english language to make me feel what they are feeling."

lots of good ground for threads here.

UT, that would reduce the number of orphan posts by 70%. You're a genius.

Psh, sixty to a page here.

wait a ....minnnit... 50 isn't a choice.

No it's not... unless you're Lord Undertoad.

Dudes, I was jokin'. Never thought it would turn into a debate. (Forgot I was in the Cellar, never mind.) And I do like to be noticed. :p

Shawnee, did you notice that your post was numer 45?

Now you're an orphan post.

Story of my life, fellas, story of my life. ;)

It must be, cuz that's the number of posts I have per page.

And I'm no Lord, or even lady...:D

Edited to add --I just checked my user options, and I have forum default picked. It's 15 or something little when I'm not logged in, must be 50 when I am.

well, whaddya know. 50 isn't a choice, but 40 and 60 are. I didn't even know I could change that, now I do!

Okay then.

I don't think this place needs endless fluffy posts to "keep" it lively. It's been alive and well since 1990 and doesn't show any signs of ailing. It's not moving forward if all the new posts at any given time are by the same person or cover the same ground.

Also why post on your own thread complaining that no-one is interested? Surely the fact that you have views but not replies means simply that - and making that comment does not get you anywhere.

I'm a newbie too. I don't post on the highbrow or political threads because I feel I am out of my depth. However they help me to form an opinion on what I read elsewhere and to question my existing views. If I've been guilty of too many fluffy posts in the past I hope at least I've kept them to the shallower areas of the Cellar, where they can be avoided by those that aren't interested.

This isn't a personal attack, but it is my opinion that you start too many threads that simply can't be sustained on a forum like this, and then feel aggrieved when you don't get a response.

Hmm, well I don't feel aggrieved when I don't get a response, because I figure not everyone is interested in the same things I am. I'm always surprised at what gets picked up, though.

I did not realize you sincerely though I started too many threads, though. I certainly don't think it won't be lively without me, but I believe in making a contribution.

Too bad--I was having fun.

i bet glatt will quote you now and say someting about how many threads he's started

I have 4,933 posts, but have only started 37 threads. I wasn't making a contribution with 4,896 of those posts?

of course you were, why would you think you weren't?

I guess I misinterpreted your post. I thought you were implying that starting threads was the best/only way to make a contribution.

start as many threads as you like.....as far as my opinion goes. silly threads never hurt anyone.

i only said anything cuz i think starting a new thread to post a fucking link is really lazy. it takes effort to come up with a new thread. i salute you. it's the one finger salute, but i'm smiling while saluting.

Go! SG,

Fluff is good. But not too much. When a silly/unexpected/irrelevant question is asked occasionally, it makes people stop, smile and respond/be amused by the answers of those who have responded. When there are several such questions a day, it's going to annoy some who have limited time. And it will annoy, even if they don't respond.

It's horses for courses. If it is in your nature to be chatty and start many topics, do so. If it isn't don't. But don't expect the others to join you in your preference. Think about how irritating it is IRL if you're a quiet person and people try to force you to speak. Think about how irritating it is if you like to chat and everyone tells you to shut up without even finding out what you want to talk about.

Tolerance. Patience. And the ignore button.

I was at a party on the weekend and one woman was fairly well pissed and just wouldn't shut up. It was very difficult for anyone else to participate in the conversation because she was all pervasive.

Saturday night has now become referred to as "The Denise Show".