Updates

[Alun]

However, because my response to the first post was already too long to attract many readers, I know there is less chance of anyone reading my post, if I add to it.

I understand this, but it seems like your alternative is to then post immediately after, and respond to the next person. So basically you're making a post that is just as long, but breaking it up by submitting it as two posts, right? It seems like you're just as likely to be ignored in either case.

Finally, there is this matter of how long I can hold a thought, when I keep reading.

I don't remember things like that either (usually); I respond to one person, then look at the thread again, then add my reply to the next interesting post, etc. I just don't close/submit my post until I've replied to everyone I'd like to. One easy way to do this is to open up the submission in a separate window--or just use the thread display beneath the submission box.

Alun, what is your meaning? ...
Someone would have to know the history of this thread to understand why you said "As to new users, I think Scott can simply post it in the forum rules and as a warning that double posts will be rejected".

Sorry, it was indeed relative to lifegazer's reply; I should have broken up the thought.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

In the rare case users need to edit a post but for some reason want to have the time-stamp updated and the thread marked us updated for those who have already viewed it, then the poster can copy and paste their old post, delete the original, and re-post the edited version as a new post.

I will see if I can figure out how to have the warning also appear when someone clicks post reply as opposed to just when they are actually trying to reply, so that people do not inadvertently try to make a double post without realizing they were the last person to reply. But this will be difficult because the submit page is just a generic page that's mostly the same code regardless of the topic, unlike the submit script which actually calls the topic. It's obviously possible, but I'm not sure it's worth it.

I have always highly recommended people use Firefox or some other browser rather than Internet Explorer. But I now even more highly recommend it for users of this forum or any other website where you enter text because, unlike Firefox, Internet Explorer loses entered text if the browser crashes, the computer crashes or you leave the page--the vast majority of which is completely out of my control as the webmaster of the site. (Incidentally, Firefox also has a built-in spell-check.) Regardless, if one previews their post before submitting it (which I expect everyone to do anyway), when they hit the back button, the preview box will still display the post allowing one to copy and paste it.

***

Athena, I didn't say anything about ego. I am saying the difference between three consecutive posts by the same user rather than 1 post is that the user's avatar, post count, signature is needlessly displayed 3 times. Why do this just to separate sections of one's post? As for wanting people to read your post, I think someone is just as likely to read any given section of the post or all three sections regardless of whether re-posting the avatar, signature, etc. is used to separate the sections or just an extra line break, a few asterisks or something.

Please re-look at this example. Please tell me if you really think it is actually more confusing than posting three consecutive posts. Please tell me if you really think people would likely read less of the sections because I posted it as one post rather than three consecutive posts.

Well, it should be obvious that most of us don't always have sufficient chunks of time available to respond to several posts at once, especially if those posts are of good length. This means that if we try to do it, it will be rushed and lacking in the quality and detail that might have been there had we not been so pushed.

No. You can edit the last post. The rule is NOT that if you think of something to add to a thread before someone has replied you can't add to it. The rule is that if you have something to add, instead of posting a consecutive post, you just add to the last one.

[athena]

webreakourlettersintowordsandbreakourwordsintosent encesandbreakoursentencesintoparagrapghssothatourw ritinghaslogicalorderandformandforthesamereasoniti shelpfultodivideourpostintoseparatepostthatarecong ruentsubjectsandnotonebigmessofwordsandsubjects

[lifegazer]

It seems that nothing's going to change here. I'll let time do some talking now.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

webreakourlettersintowordsandbreakourwordsintosent encesandbreakoursentencesintoparagrapghssothatourw ritinghaslogicalorderandformandforthesamereasoniti shelpfultodivideourpostintoseparatepostthatarecong ruentsubjectsandnotonebigmessofwordsandsubjects

No, I don't get it. Obviously, spaces between words and line breaks between paragraphs are necessary and clearer than not using them.

How is splitting a long post into multiple consecutive posts clearer than this? How does the re-display of one's avatar, post count, signature do the job any better than an extra line break or some asterisks?

[lifegazer]

How is splitting a long post into multiple consecutive posts clearer than this?

Nice bit of PR there, Scott: pick out a perfectly-lengthed multi-specific post to prove that you are right.
What about the quality, Scott? Is that perfect, too?
And can all multi-specific responses be as perfect as yours?

Scott, ALL causes can be justified if the focus is specific and limited. That's why '****' happens quite alot in the world. I'm not necessarily saying that what you are saying is poo. But what I am saying, is that you are focusing on a very short-sighted and trivial ideal at the expense of something that is significantly more important.

How does the re-display of one's avatar, post count, signature do the job any better than an extra line break or some asterisks?

That's VERY trivial Scott. You even make it sound as though you spend eons looking at the avatar, post-count & signature of every post, as you scroll downwards.
Also, something else has come to mind: why should it bug you to read this response to you, for example, and then have to FLEETINGLY see a header prior to reading the next post after this?

... I bypass all of the 'fluff' that you talk about in an instant! And then I'm onto the next post.
Do you hate 'instants', Scott? How impatient are you?
Can you not even scroll past what amounts to a second of your life, in order to read the next post?!

Really, Scott, this is what this update amounts to. And at what price?! Well, getting you to acknowledge the frustrations & concerns here has been hard work. You've made alsorts of excuses and have ignored alot of what I and others have said.
BUT WHY? - BECAUSE THE NEW UPDATE ALLOWS YOU TO NOT HAVE TO WASTE ABOUT A SECOND (if that) OF YOUR LIFE, AS YOU SCROLL DOWN THROUGH THE NEW REPLIES!!!!!!!!!

This update IS NOT justified, Scott, and is a reflection of your personal - but irrational - impatiences. The reason for this update is so trivial (wasting a second of your life), that I am flabbergasted.

Furthermore, your defence amounts to constantly linking us to the 'perfect example' of how you tackled responding to three people in a reasonable amount of words - but swept over the quality of those words. Consequently then, this defence also implicitly proclaims that ALL replies to multiple posts can be responded to in a reasonable amount of QUALITY text. That's nonsensical reasoning.
In other words, your link/example is futile and worthless (as evidence that you are right).

I've got to the stage where I'm not that bothered anymore. If this is the way the forum is going to be run, then I'm not that worried if the 'boss' gets upset with me. But, I'm determined to make a point, before I have to go.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

lifegazer,

My time is wasted greatly by double posts, yes. But it's not about the time I spend looking at avatars. It's the time I spend deleting accidental double posts, or editing consecutive posts into 1.

The point I'm making about the avatar is not about my time being wasted. It's about the fact that I in no way understand why you or anyone else has a problem writing a post as 1 post (that can be split into sections using asterisks, an extra line break, or something similar) rather than splitting it into sections by turning it into multiple consecutive posts.

If you have something to add to a post after posting it, then use the edit function to add it.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Sometimes people have a "PS" to write, but they can do that in the same post.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Besides, I'd estimate 90% of consecutive posts by the same user are actually accidentally posting the same post twice.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Besides, I'd estimate 90% of consecutive posts by the same user are actually accidentally posting the same post twice.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This new automation prevents those, which is its main purpose. If it happens to prevent the much rarer instances of people needlessly and purposely splitting their post into multiple consecutive posts as a way to distinguish sections of the post (e.g. this part is a reply to this person, this part is a reply to this person), then that's great too. One can more easily and clearly distinguish between different sections of a post keeping it as one post and using asterisks, extra line breaks, bold usernames or titles, etc. as a divider instead of confusingly splitting it into multiple consecutive posts to use the re-display of the poster's username, post count and signature as a divider.

[lifegazer]

Scott, can you tell us why you are allowed to post five posts in a row, when we can't post even two?
Are YOU alone exempt from the restrictions of your own update?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EDIT: Yes, I just tried to make a consecutive post, but can't. So, only the boss can make consecutive posts. As many as he likes, apparently. Oh well.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Obviously, I did it to playfully illustrate how consecutive posts are usually used, and how annoying and confusing it can be.

Needless to say, I wouldn't do such a thing elsewhere in the forum.

(There's lots of things I can do as the admin and owner of this site, by the way. I could post a whole bunch of threads with your username saying that I am the coolest person in the world. I could make it so every time anyone writes the word Scott it is automatically replaced with Dr. Cool. I could do anything. )

Thanks,
Scott

[lifegazer]

by the way. I could post a whole bunch of threads with your username saying that I am the coolest person in the world. I could make it so every time anyone writes the word Scott it is automatically replaced with Dr. Cool. I could do anything. )

Thanks,
Scott

I know this. You could even prevent consecutive posts, but that would exceed all madness.

[Alun]

webreakourlettersintowordsandbreakourwordsintosent encesandbreakoursentencesintoparagrapghssothatourw ritinghaslogicalorderandformandforthesamereasoniti shelpfultodivideourpostintoseparatepostthatarecong ruentsubjectsandnotonebigmessofwordsandsubjects

Again, I don't think Scott is just talking out of his ass here. Obviously dividers are helpful, but I can divide up a post without submitting it as a separate post. As Scott said in the beginning: Suppose I'm having a conversation with two guys. I have something to say to one of them, so I say it--then I say goodbye, and leave the room. Then immediately I come back in, say hi to the second person, and tell him what I wanted to say to him all along.

As another example, why wouldn't it be helpful, by your thinking, to split up our posts for every sentence? I mean, a period just isn't a good enough divider. Plus, people are more likely to read every sentence that way, right?

What I'm saying is that we can be a tad bit more subtle here. People can read their name in bold to know they're being talked to; you don't have to submit a whole new post for them.

Finally, I just wanted to reiterate that you don't have to have everything you want to say to everyone in your mind at once; you can open up the thread in a new window, or just look below the post submission box, to read and respond as you go--all in one post.

lifegazer, (see what I did there? I'm also now looking at your post via the "topic review" box) could you please explain a little more calmly why consecutive posting is necessary? Your previous responses just don't seem to hold water.