Forum Posting Etiquette
-
I think I like FB's way about the best. There is the OP, followed by level one of posts, which can have their own second level, but not a third - though a third, etc would be awesome because it would allow someone to have a full on conversation about that single higher idea - the main thing to be concerned about would be the eventual drifting of that conversation would would belong to a high yet post.
-
@Dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
I think I like FB's way about the best. There is the OP, followed by level one of posts, which can have their own second level, but not a third - though a third, etc would be awesome because it would allow someone to have a full on conversation about that single higher idea - the main thing to be concerned about would be the eventual drifting of that conversation would would belong to a high yet post.
It's not a bad concept. I've found that whatever FB does, though, results in just.... no meaningful conversation. It's very drifting and lost. Maybe it is because they don't have a good way to view it. But I never seen meaningful conversations there, just this weird meandering of comments. It makes it easy to respond and leave and never to engage or find closure. It's good for gossip, bad for peer review.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@Dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
I think I like FB's way about the best. There is the OP, followed by level one of posts, which can have their own second level, but not a third - though a third, etc would be awesome because it would allow someone to have a full on conversation about that single higher idea - the main thing to be concerned about would be the eventual drifting of that conversation would would belong to a high yet post.
It's not a bad concept. I've found that whatever FB does, though, results in just.... no meaningful conversation. It's very drifting and lost. Maybe it is because they don't have a good way to view it. But I never seen meaningful conversations there, just this weird meandering of comments. It makes it easy to respond and leave and never to engage or find closure. It's good for gossip, bad for peer review.
I think that's just the way people treat it - I've had some (though very few) good fully engaged conversations on FB.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
that thing where they break up a wall of text in one post and reply to sections. It's the best of both worlds. Example:
I hate to post too many answers and going through each answer. It just makes it harder to follow. Already a whole paragraph to respond and now we need to answer in four different posts. That is just insane for the followup that comes after it.
-
@dbeato said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
that thing where they break up a wall of text in one post and reply to sections. It's the best of both worlds. Example:
I hate to post too many answers and going through each answer. It just makes it harder to follow. Already a whole paragraph to respond and now we need to answer in four different posts. That is just insane for the followup that comes after it.
It's more to follow, but it keeps the following easier because you don't have to figure out a long post and all the posts that it was responding to. It keeps the thoughts separate.
-
@Dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@Dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
I think I like FB's way about the best. There is the OP, followed by level one of posts, which can have their own second level, but not a third - though a third, etc would be awesome because it would allow someone to have a full on conversation about that single higher idea - the main thing to be concerned about would be the eventual drifting of that conversation would would belong to a high yet post.
It's not a bad concept. I've found that whatever FB does, though, results in just.... no meaningful conversation. It's very drifting and lost. Maybe it is because they don't have a good way to view it. But I never seen meaningful conversations there, just this weird meandering of comments. It makes it easy to respond and leave and never to engage or find closure. It's good for gossip, bad for peer review.
I think that's just the way people treat it - I've had some (though very few) good fully engaged conversations on FB.
Yeah, that's very possible. But I think the interface plays a role in encouraging behaviour. LIke it never shows what is relevant.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@Dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
@Dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette:
I think I like FB's way about the best. There is the OP, followed by level one of posts, which can have their own second level, but not a third - though a third, etc would be awesome because it would allow someone to have a full on conversation about that single higher idea - the main thing to be concerned about would be the eventual drifting of that conversation would would belong to a high yet post.
It's not a bad concept. I've found that whatever FB does, though, results in just.... no meaningful conversation. It's very drifting and lost. Maybe it is because they don't have a good way to view it. But I never seen meaningful conversations there, just this weird meandering of comments. It makes it easy to respond and leave and never to engage or find closure. It's good for gossip, bad for peer review.
I think that's just the way people treat it - I've had some (though very few) good fully engaged conversations on FB.
Yeah, that's very possible. But I think the interface plays a role in encouraging behaviour. LIke it never shows what is relevant.
yeah - I have no idea how FB decides what to show you?
I use a filter that always pulls the page back to chronological order. Shit thing though - FB reposts the same thing like 4 times sometimes, it's ridiculous
-
Not sure what the original source of this was, but found it interesting that they note the "wall of text" issue specifically as a problem that makes it hard for some people to follow the topic.
