Sequential Posting

[issybird]

I know it's not a violation of the rules, but I wonder if it could be strongly suggested that people not sequential post. At a minimum, it's inelegant. Generally, it's irritating, to have to scroll through the same gobbledygook of avatars, slogans and sigs, just to read another short post from the same poster as the one above. And the one above that. And the one above that. I must admit I finally cracked this morning, when I was catching up on one thread and saw no fewer than six posts in a row from one poster. Basic netiquette says don't, and I figure that people do it out of ignorance, laziness or general buttheadedness, but a recommendation not to do so could help with all of these - perhaps combined with a pointer to the multi-quote function, for those who really don't know better/how.

Sometimes, there's a good reason for a sequential post, mostly having to do with time since the last post when few will see the edit. Sometimes a dramatic shift in theme could warrant it. And sometimes, it's just going to happen. But six in a row? Puh-leeze.

[murg]

It really isn't sequential posting, it's going through an active thread after a day or two away and commenting on specific posts. Especially if those original posts were in response to your prior posts.

[eschwartz]

Same here -- coming back after a day or two and responding to seven different trains of thought by different people... why should I cram all that into one gigantic ten-foot-long post?

[theducks]

The original post may span pages
I answer in order, rather than go back and try to find 'todays' start

[darryl]

@issybird. I do understand your frustration. However, I think the alternative could often turn out to be much worse.

[Jellby]

Disabling signatures and/or avatars can make it less annoying.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by murg

It really isn't sequential posting, it's going through an active thread after a day or two away and commenting on specific posts. Especially if those original posts were in response to your prior posts.

No reason not to multi-quote; that's what it's for.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Same here -- coming back after a day or two and responding to seven different trains of thought by different people... why should I cram all that into one gigantic ten-foot-long post?

It's longer still when it's a bunch of individual posts.

Originally Posted by theducks

The original post may span pages
I answer in order, rather than go back and try to find 'todays' start

All you have to do is hit the multi-quote icon as you read, and then the relevant posts are listed in whatever order you want. Or maybe I'm missing something; I don't quite get your point.

Originally Posted by darryl

@issybird. I do understand your frustration. However, I think the alternative could often turn out to be much worse.

Heh. I'd still like to try. And most seem to be able to multi-quote without catastrophe.

Originally Posted by Jellby

Disabling signatures and/or avatars can make it less annoying.

I do have signatures disabled. However, I find avatars more helpful than not when skimming a thread.

Well, it was just a suggestion. Some boards don't allow sequential posting at all, which I do think is a little draconian. To me, it's the issues of courtesy and elegance, akin to limits on image size. From what I'm reading here, those who favor sequential posting are thinking more about their own convenience.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by issybird

It's longer still when it's a bunch of individual posts.

...

From what I'm reading here, those who favor sequential posting are thinking more about their own convenience.

I do use the multi-quote, when following one line of thought across multiple peoples' posts. But I try to avoid multi-quoting totally different flows, because avoiding extra signatures is not an especial goal of mine.

I don't want to put up intimidating walls of text and posts that double the height of a page unless it is unavoidable.


It has NOTHING to do with convenience -- in fact it is less convenient (on my part) to break up the posts...

[theducks]

I have never found detailed instructions on multi quote usage.
What I tried using MY LOGIC did not work

I want to select a portion of the text: Hit the button type my reply

I do not want to read the entire thread (to determine if there will be additional posts that will need a reply) and lose the train of thought I had about that message. Just different strokes

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by theducks

I do not want to read the entire thread (to determine if there will be additional posts that will need a reply) and lose the train of thought I had about that message. Just different strokes

This ^

[BetterRed]

I always 'try' to read all the new posts before responding, no point is saying what's already been said. I do use multi quote - providing the quoted posts are 'in the same train of thought'.

Occasionally I've noticed a string of sequential posts that are not in response to any other posts and add little or no value to the threads raison d'être. And I find those particularly irritating.

I hide avatars and sigs - IMO they're a waste of bandwidth.

BR

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

I always 'try' to read all the new posts before responding, no point is saying what's already been said. I do use multi quote - providing the quoted posts are 'in the same train of thought'.

BR

This.^^

[theducks]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

I always 'try' to read all the new posts before responding, no point is saying what's already been said. I do use multi quote - providing the quoted posts are 'in the same train of thought'.

Occasionally I've noticed a string of sequential posts that are not in response to any other posts and add little or no value to the threads raison d'être. And I find those particularly irritating.

I hide avatars and sigs - IMO they're a waste of bandwidth.

BR

Sure there is
Who believes a single poster