End dubble posting
Forum rules
Keep in mind that this forum is for Reasontalk.com suggestions, and not for support on your Reason Studios software.
Keep in mind that this forum is for Reasontalk.com suggestions, and not for support on your Reason Studios software.
Guys, there is an edit button, no need to keep post after post going on these threads. I've seen some mods do this as well. I've been on other boards in the past where this was never tolerated. Neither should it be here.
Can you clarify - what do you mean by "double posting" - do you mean quoting?Skullture wrote:Guys, there is an edit button, no need to keep post after post going on these threads. I've seen some mods do this as well. I've been on other boards in the past where this was never tolerated. Neither should it be here.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
No, literally making two posts (replies) after each other. Rather than putting it neatly in one post and wait until someone replies to make another one.selig wrote:Can you clarify - what do you mean by "double posting" - do you mean quoting?Skullture wrote:Guys, there is an edit button, no need to keep post after post going on these threads. I've seen some mods do this as well. I've been on other boards in the past where this was never tolerated. Neither should it be here.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I think if you happen to see this, just report it with the orange button. Moderators are unable to check every post.
Edit: I don't know if the button is orange in every skin actually. The one marked with "!" next to "Quote".
Edit: I don't know if the button is orange in every skin actually. The one marked with "!" next to "Quote".
So you feel two separate posts is different than one post with two replies? Not trying to be clever here, just not sure I'm following the reasoning - why is this a problem?Skullture wrote:No, literally making two posts (replies) after each other. Rather than putting it neatly in one post and wait until someone replies to make another one.selig wrote:Can you clarify - what do you mean by "double posting" - do you mean quoting?Skullture wrote:Guys, there is an edit button, no need to keep post after post going on these threads. I've seen some mods do this as well. I've been on other boards in the past where this was never tolerated. Neither should it be here.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Apologies if I'm totally missing your point, I'll eventually get on the same page as you! (And allow me to personally thank you for taking the time to try to make this a better place for everyone)
Selig Audio, LLC
You can quote two persons in one single reply. Some people feel that they have to do it twice (two seperate replies following each other, causing to cram the page), so this comes over as spamming.selig wrote:So you feel two separate posts is different than one post with two replies? Not trying to be clever here, just not sure I'm following the reasoning - why is this a problem?Skullture wrote:No, literally making two posts (replies) after each other. Rather than putting it neatly in one post and wait until someone replies to make another one.selig wrote:Can you clarify - what do you mean by "double posting" - do you mean quoting?Skullture wrote:Guys, there is an edit button, no need to keep post after post going on these threads. I've seen some mods do this as well. I've been on other boards in the past where this was never tolerated. Neither should it be here.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Apologies if I'm totally missing your point, I'll eventually get on the same page as you! (And allow me to personally thank you for taking the time to try to make this a better place for everyone)
Example: this post. Right after I posted a reply to Selig. This is how we should NOT do it. It's oldschool spamming.
OK, but I'll say we have a very different definition of "cramming the page" and especially "spamming".Skullture wrote:You can quote two persons in one single reply. Some people feel that they have to do it twice (two seperate replies following each other, causing to cram the page), so this comes over as spamming.selig wrote:So you feel two separate posts is different than one post with two replies? Not trying to be clever here, just not sure I'm following the reasoning - why is this a problem?Skullture wrote:No, literally making two posts (replies) after each other. Rather than putting it neatly in one post and wait until someone replies to make another one.selig wrote:Can you clarify - what do you mean by "double posting" - do you mean quoting?Skullture wrote:Guys, there is an edit button, no need to keep post after post going on these threads. I've seen some mods do this as well. I've been on other boards in the past where this was never tolerated. Neither should it be here.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Apologies if I'm totally missing your point, I'll eventually get on the same page as you! (And allow me to personally thank you for taking the time to try to make this a better place for everyone)
IMO
Keeping the replies different helps keep discussion sub-theads cleaner IMO: when someone responses to your reply they don't have to edit out the parts that don't apply. Unless you're suggesting they should keep adding to the post - but then talk about cramming the page! Seems more confusing to me.
I'll let Kenni handle make a call on this one, as it seems like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" thing to me so I'm not the best judge of which approach to take.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
Ah, I see. First I thought you were talking about posts duplicated by mistake.Skullture wrote:Example: this post. Right after I posted a reply to Selig. This is how we should NOT do it. It's oldschool spamming.
I don't think 2 consecutive posts is spamming. It can be misused for spamming, and it can be used for splitting a reply into on and off topic parts, for example.
Skullture wrote:Example: this post. Right after I posted a reply to Selig. This is how we should NOT do it. It's oldschool spamming.
OK this is different than what I thought we were talking about - in this example you added to your previous text but used a second post. Is this what this thread is talking about?
Selig Audio, LLC
Yes, I have to admit my description was a tad confusing though..selig wrote:Skullture wrote:Example: this post. Right after I posted a reply to Selig. This is how we should NOT do it. It's oldschool spamming.
OK this is different than what I thought we were talking about - in this example you added to your previous text but used a second post. Is this what this thread is talking about?
OK then, I can agree with you it's better to keep all responses in one post where possible, but I hardly see it as anything out of control or as something that hurts the user experience. I guess it's a matter of quantity - if someone does that 3-4 or more times in a row, then yes it's out of control and unnecessary.Skullture wrote:Yes, I have to admit my description was a tad confusing though..selig wrote:Skullture wrote:Example: this post. Right after I posted a reply to Selig. This is how we should NOT do it. It's oldschool spamming.
OK this is different than what I thought we were talking about - in this example you added to your previous text but used a second post. Is this what this thread is talking about?
To be honest, to date I've not noticed this - yet. Possibly by being made aware of it I will begin to see it more often and more obviously, and will be happy to clean up any messes I spot!
Thanks for taking the time to point this out!
Selig Audio, LLC
And you thanks for taking note it only hurts the user experience sometimes when discussions heat up (reason 9 lol) and you want to keep a decent oversight of the topic itself.selig wrote:OK then, I can agree with you it's better to keep all responses in one post where possible, but I hardly see it as anything out of control or as something that hurts the user experience. I guess it's a matter of quantity - if someone does that 3-4 or more times in a row, then yes it's out of control and unnecessary.Skullture wrote:Yes, I have to admit my description was a tad confusing though..selig wrote:Skullture wrote:Example: this post. Right after I posted a reply to Selig. This is how we should NOT do it. It's oldschool spamming.
OK this is different than what I thought we were talking about - in this example you added to your previous text but used a second post. Is this what this thread is talking about?
To be honest, to date I've not noticed this - yet. Possibly by being made aware of it I will begin to see it more often and more obviously, and will be happy to clean up any messes I spot!
Thanks for taking the time to point this out!
In the old days when I was a young whipper-snapper hanging out on bulletin boards I understood SPAM to mean posts of a Self-Promotion, Advertising, Marketing nature hence the acronym.
Nowadays it just seems to be a blanket-term for any kind of netiquette misdemeanor, including trolling and cross-posting.
So no wonder it is difficult to define or understand what a particular problem is anymore.
Nowadays it just seems to be a blanket-term for any kind of netiquette misdemeanor, including trolling and cross-posting.
So no wonder it is difficult to define or understand what a particular problem is anymore.
That's what I thought too. Maybe "flooding" is a better example…Ostermilk wrote:In the old days when I was a young whipper-snapper hanging out on bulletin boards I understood SPAM to mean posts of a Self-Promotion, Advertising, Marketing nature hence the acronym.
Nowadays it just seems to be a blanket-term for any kind of netiquette misdemeanor, including trolling and cross-posting.
So no wonder it is difficult to define or understand what a particular problem is anymore.
Selig Audio, LLC
I mean a better "term", not example…selig wrote:That's what I thought too. Maybe "flooding" is a better example…Ostermilk wrote:In the old days when I was a young whipper-snapper hanging out on bulletin boards I understood SPAM to mean posts of a Self-Promotion, Advertising, Marketing nature hence the acronym.
Nowadays it just seems to be a blanket-term for any kind of netiquette misdemeanor, including trolling and cross-posting.
So no wonder it is difficult to define or understand what a particular problem is anymore.
Selig Audio, LLC
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests