Alun wrote: Why is it more difficult to compose several long replies in one post?
I want to answer your question. People are more apt to read a small post than a long one. If I didn't want people to read and respond to my thoughts, I wouldn't be here. But it is not just about wanting others to read and respond to my thoughts, it is also about doing the thinking. When I write, it is not exactly to please and attract readers, but to engage in the process of thinking itself. Often, I am not aware of what I think, until trying to put my thoughts in words that I hope others will relate to, and say "you are right, and...." or "you are wrong, because....".
Now sometimes a thread will contain several thought stimulating post and I will want to do the thinking process with each one, because each stimulates a slightly different way of thinking about something. 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. So I stop reading what people are saying, as soon as I find a post I want to respond to. Do you understand, the new rule greatly decreases the chances I will read what you said, if several people are posting to the thread?
This is particularly a problem if it is a really good thread, and several people have made stimulating post. It is like being a diabetic in a bakery. I want to read and respond to everyone, and know this will make my post too long. The solution is, don't go back to the thread, ever. Don't do the heavy thinking, but just the trivial thinking. Just as if I were diabetic, I would not enter a bakery. Instead of really getting involved with an interesting subject, I am now choosing threads with only a couple of post, and doing a hit and run thing. I just am not doing the reading and getting as involved as I was before the rule.
Finally, there is this matter of how long I can hold a thought, when I keep reading. May be the first person said something I really want to respond to, but I keep reading post in case I want to respond to what someone else more. This results in not remembering what I wanted to say to the first person. The frustration of knowing I wanted to say something to someone, and not being able to remember what that was, means reading one post at a time, and replying to one. It means, I far less likely to read what you wrote. In fact, unless you are one of favorite writers, I will probably ignore all post and read only my favorite writers. What did I say in the second paragraph? Please, respond to that paragraph, without going back to check what I said, because this is a test of your memory. Is your memory that much better than mine?
Do you remember the first thing you wanted to say? How about the second thing you wanted to say? Sometimes I break someone's post into two or three replies, because I can not remember everything a person said, and need to break down what a person said, into little chunks. I think this is partly why people like short post. One thought bleeds into another and nothing is remembered. If nothing is remembers, than there is nothing say to say in response, and then there is really point in coming to the forums.
lifegazer obviously we agree, and I want to add what said.
Say a thread has several good post and we want to respond to more than one, but a day or so latter, no one has replied, so we still can't quote and reply to a previous post.
As you said, an edited post doesn't count as a new post, and now the thread is moving down the list of threads and is less likely to get noticed. We want to bring the thread up to the top of the list where it is more apt to attention, but we can't. Waiting for someone else to reply, can mean the thread we like, will disappear into a forgotten past in the back pages no one checks.
Alun, what is your meaning?
What you're saying about long posts is true, but I don't see how you're really making any longer or shorter a post by breaking it up into consecutive posts. 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.
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". Because the sentence can not stand alone, and does not go well with your previous sentence. "What you're saying about long posts is true, but I don't see how you're really making any longer or shorter a post by breaking it up into consecutive posts". And that sentence doesn't make sense. If you said "What you're saying about long posts is true, but I don't see how you're really making post longer or shorter by breaking it up into consecutive posts." then sentence makes sense, but the thought doesn't.
I don't think I have posted such a long post, so perhaps now you can "see" the difference between responding to one post at a time, or responding to everyone in one post.
Scott and lifegazer
Firefox even saves it, so that if my computer crashes or the browser freezes, when I restart the page is loaded with post still there.
---------------------------------
Wow. I wish I had known this several years ago. Thousands upon thousands of my words have been flushed through the plughole of cyberspace, lost forever.
I have foxfire and plenty of times I loose everything. It is really the pits when I loose want I was writing, because I have quoted something from google, and went back to get the address, and return to find my writing and the quote gone. Often I select and copy my page, to protect it, but then I can't copy a quote or address, without loosing the page I was saving.
May be lifegazer and I just have bad karma?
Scott
Regardless, I expect everyone to preview their posts and proof read their before posting them...
Is this what you meant to say?
And if any members say they would really stop coming here because they can't redisplay their avatar, signature, etc. multiple times in one long post to separate it into sections (as opposed to just using an extra line break or some asterisks or something), then I disbelieve that the person wants to be here anyway. It seems they are just looking for an excuse, however minor.
Wow, that is scary. You really think we are asking for the ability to post to different posters separately, for petty ego reasons? What would make you think such a thing? What we see in others is a reflection of ourselves. I want to throw up at the thought that all this is about ego, and not the pleasure of thinking and what sharing our thoughts with others has to do developing our own thinking. If my motive were nothing but ego..., well, there are easier ways to get attention than put in the effort of thinking things through. I thought you were a bigger person, and I am disappointed that you would think this is just an ego thing.
Now even I am bored with my reply, but I am wondering what would happen if I make it long enough to be too long for the page. Is that possible?
