Separate replies combined

[Martian Visitor]

Hi Scott,

I've enjoyed my first few days on the forum, but I have a little quibble about the feature that aggregates the separate replies made to a discussion. If I wanted to combine my replies I could do that myself, but there are reasons why I don't.

It's not a big problem, just a minor irritation.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

What are the reasons why you don't?

[Martian Visitor]

What are the reasons why you don't?

Well, I'm a professional writer, I'm capable of deciding for myself whether I want to respond to people individually or in combination. I might for example want to address a brief and jokey one-liner to one person, and spend a lot of time discussing a point in detail with another. Having the messages combined can break up the flow of thought I am trying to express.

More generally, I don't like it when decisions like this are made for me by a mere computer, without asking for my permission.

What are the reasons for having the system set up the way it is Scott?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I don't see how not having a post separated into multiple consecutive posts is needed to respond to multiple people individually. For instance, see these posts: this post or, for a longer example with the parts separated by asterisks, this example.

Hare are the reasons why I do not allow consecutive posts by the same person in the same topic:

(1) Other members and I have decided it is more confusing. Analogous to a speaker at a lecture standing up walking to the microphone making part of his speech (perhaps directed towards one-sub-topic, then saying thank you and walking away and sitting back down and then immediately standing back up and walking back over to the mic and continuing to talk.

(2) It is a waste of screen-space, bandwidth and database space to have a user's avatar, signature and profile details displayed repeatedly simply because the user decided to break a post into multiple consecutive posts. There are plenty of other ways to provide separations in the post, including my favorite of using a few asterisks between line-breaks. Other options are using lines like ------- or _______.

(3) Almost all people who created consecutive posts did so not because they intentionally preferred that to editing but because they didn't know to and/or feel like properly proof-reading their post before submitting it and editing their post if they still need to make changes after posting it.

(4) It distorts post counts of both user's and topics.

(5) Having multiple separate discussions in a single topic is not in the spirit of the forum and contributes to topic derailing and repetitiveness. Create a new forum topic for each separate discussion, and use the PM function for personal one-on-one conversations.

[Martian Visitor]

(1) Other members and I have decided it is more confusing. Analogous to a speaker at a lecture standing up walking to the microphone making part of his speech (perhaps directed towards one-sub-topic, then saying thank you and walking away and sitting back down and then immediately standing back up and walking back over to the mic and continuing to talk.

But this isn't a lecture by one person to an audience, it's a discussion between individuals.

(2) It is a waste of screen-space, bandwidth and database space to have a user's avatar, signature and profile details displayed repeatedly simply because the user decided to break a post into multiple consecutive posts. There are plenty of other ways to provide separations in the post, including my favorite of using a few asterisks between line-breaks. Other options are using lines like ------- or _______.

I wouldn't have avatars, signatures and profile details displayed if I was in charge. I think they are childish. If screen space, bandwidth and database space are really an issue, then get rid of avatars and profile details etc.

(3) Almost all people who created consecutive posts did so not because they intentionally preferred that to editing but because they didn't know to and/or feel like properly proof-reading their post before submitting it and editing their post if they still need to make changes after posting it.

How do you know that?

I've used many, many internet forums, including several philosophy discussion forums, and this is the only one that I have seen that works this way.

(4) It distorts post counts of both user's and topics.

Who cares?

(5) Having multiple separate discussions in a single topic is not in the spirit of the forum and contributes to topic derailing and repetitiveness.

Combining replies in a single post doesn't do anything to address these problems, if they are problems!

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

(1) Other members and I have decided it is more confusing. Analogous to a speaker at a lecture standing up walking to the microphone making part of his speech (perhaps directed towards one-sub-topic, then saying thank you and walking away and sitting back down and then immediately standing back up and walking back over to the mic and continuing to talk.

But this isn't a lecture by one person to an audience, it's a discussion between individuals.

I think the point still stands, but I could easily reconstruct the hypothetical example to be a group discussion in which a person stands up begins talking, sits back down, stands up again and begins talking some more.

(2) It is a waste of screen-space, bandwidth and database space to have a user's avatar, signature and profile details displayed repeatedly simply because the user decided to break a post into multiple consecutive posts. There are plenty of other ways to provide separations in the post, including my favorite of using a few asterisks between line-breaks. Other options are using lines like ------- or _______.

I wouldn't have avatars, signatures and profile details displayed if I was in charge. I think they are childish. If screen space, bandwidth and database space are really an issue, then get rid of avatars and profile details etc.

But that -- the displaying of avatars, etc. -- is all that happens by creating two consecutive posts by the same user rather than having the posts combined in one post using in-post separators and organization. The out-post separators are the re-display of the username, avatar, and so on.

Additionally, on the back end, the post is then stored in the database as two posts with very similar information (i.e. username, topic ID) which is a big waste if there is nothing at all to be gained by separating all these posts into multiple, consecutive posts and I am yet to understand what there is to gain at all by this database-separation and re-display of out-post separators such as avatars as opposed to the use of in-post separators as demonstrated in the previously provided links.

(3) Almost all people who created consecutive posts did so not because they intentionally preferred that to editing but because they didn't know to and/or feel like properly proof-reading their post before submitting it and editing their post if they still need to make changes after posting it.

How do you know that?

I've used many, many internet forums, including several philosophy discussion forums, and this is the only one that I have seen that works this way.

I know that because in previous years I had to hand edit each of them to enforce these rules before I automated it.

I can assure you many other forums also prohibit consecutive posting by the same person in the same topic. But incidentally there are many ways in which this forum is intentionally unique to make it more conducive to productive debate and philosophical discussion and I am proud of any such uniqueness.

(4) It distorts post counts of both user's and topics.

Who cares?

Many members and I care about the accuracy of post counts. Also, certain frequently used pages make use of post counts to sort the order of topics. Indeed, incorrect post counts are one of the first things that, when they go wrong, users report to me -- or so it seems to me in the years I've been running the forum.

(5) Having multiple separate discussions in a single topic is not in the spirit of the forum and contributes to topic derailing and repetitiveness.

Combining replies in a single post doesn't do anything to address these problems, if they are problems!

I think it does help keep topics from breaking down into many separate sub-discussions and tangents confusingly wrapped up into a single topic, but I thank you for your feedback and opinions and will keep them in mind.

[Martian Visitor]

I think the point still stands, but I could easily reconstruct the hypothetical example to be a group discussion in which a person stands up begins talking, sits back down, stands up again and begins talking some more.

I don't think the point stands, and this second example doesn't work either. This isn't a group discussion in a hall, it's a different medium with a different structure, different requirements and different conventions.

When I respond to another poster I usually quote what I am responding to, most other posters usually do the same. This on its own is enough to show that your analogy with a verbal group discussion doesn't hold.

But that -- the displaying of avatars, etc. -- is all that happens by creating two consecutive posts by the same user rather than having the posts combined in one post using in-post separators and organization.

No that isn't all that happens. What also happens is that your system breaks up the rhythm and structure of what I write. Your system acts like it knows what I want to say better than I do, and it is wrong.

(3) Almost all people who created consecutive posts did so not because they intentionally preferred that to editing but because they didn't know to and/or feel like properly proof-reading their post before submitting it and editing their post if they still need to make changes after posting it.

What do you mean "preferred that to editing"? On other philosophy forums people habitually create separate posts when replying to separate posters. It doesn't have anything to do with editing.

I am very careful about what I write and how I write it. Of course I make occasional mistakes, but in general I don't need to be guided by your stupid computer system. If people aren't willing or able to write and proof-read properly, penalise them, not me.

I think it does help keep topics from breaking down into many separate sub-discussions and tangents confusingly wrapped up into a single topic, but I thank you for your feedback and opinions and will keep them in mind.

It doesn't prevent topics breaking down into subdiscussions, and it creates more confusion by putting all the sub-discussions back together again when a writer wants to keep them separate.

Can you disable this irritating feature for writers who have shown they don't need to be treated like idiots by a computer?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

But that -- the displaying of avatars, etc. -- is all that happens by creating two consecutive posts by the same user rather than having the posts combined in one post using in-post separators and organization.

No that isn't all that happens. What also happens is that your system breaks up the rhythm and structure of what I write.

If that -- the re-displaying of avatars, etc. -- isn't all that happens when consecutive posts are not combined into one, then what does happen if you break your post into two or more consecutive posts that you want to happen but you can't do within one post? Please be specific. Is it a certain image that appears between posts but cannot be posted within them? Is it a certain piece of HTML code that appears between them -- besides of course the code for the Avatars and so on? Is it really the way the posts are stored in the database that is the problem?

[Martian Visitor]

When I write a message I want it to appear the way I wrote it. If I start with a quote from somebody, I want that at the start. If the messages are combined I lose control of the structure of my post. It's an irritation to me each time it happens. It doesn't fit in with the way I want to conduct a discussion. I want to respond separately to different interlocutors. In one case it might be a one line response, in another case a lengthy discussion. The two messages may be utterly different in tone and intent, and allowing a dumb machine to mash them together for the feeble reasons you have given is barbaric.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

You didn't answer my question.

[Martian Visitor]

You didn't answer my question.

I did! You asked:

what does happen if you break your post into two or more consecutive posts that you want to happen but you can't do within one post? Please be specific.

What I want is for each message to appear as I wrote it. My messages are structured, they may for example have a beginning, a middle and an end. I want that structure to be preserved. I don't want different messages amalgamated, because that destroys the structure I have created.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

All your text is displayed in the order you submit it. What do you want separating one block of text from the other block of text?