Start at the end of the thread, and pick up on the discussion as it is there
That would be C. It is the second most rational response, and by far the most common. Congrats.
No, because I highlighted several significant differences from c) as it was phrased by you. Also, I think you're probably wrong on the existence of a more rational option as well.
I'm talking about choices- No one intetionally choses C over E, it's just how that usually ends up. And, I could very well be wrong about the relative rationality.
I have no idea how to write plug ins, but is it possible to write one where instead of not posting double, you would see double posts as large posts? If yes, can it be done on the client side? I think that would please both camps.
edit: sith, now I'm doing it.
I'm sure you don't realise it, but you're actually pretty much repeating what Scott just said in his pseudocode. Also, the answer is yes on both counts - it ought to be trivially easy on both the server-side and the client-side.
However, I don't think it's a good idea. Consider Ro's example, where there's a somewhat older thread you want to add new content to, and you happen to be the last poster in that thread. How will the forum tell people there is new content? After all, there aren't actually any new posts in the thread, so you can't have it saying "1 New", can you? Do you then bother to introduce a different message along the lines of "Last Post Updated" - that would be significantly more effort, and pretty hard to justify, in my opinion.
My answer is "poorly written code" have it display the regular count of new posts, just concatenate them during the actual viewing. But, yeah, I guess it's a good point.
My answer is "poorly written code" have it display the regular count of new posts, just concatenate them during the actual viewing. But, yeah, I guess it's a good point.
Yeah, such an approach would lead to obvious confusion. In any case, if you can come up with a decent solution and get someone to write an addon for it, then you might be able to convince Scott to use it ^_~
You could insert a <hr />. That way, there's a clear separation between the 2 posts, but maximum screenspace is used.
I think you mean minimum. <hr> is a decent form of visual separation, but how do you resolve the issue with informing users of the presence of new content? After all, you can't say there is "1 New Post", can you?
There's also a clash with the edit time limit, since if your post is merged into your previous one, you can't fix problems with it. I guess this could be resolved by resetting the timestamp, but then that makes the timestamp incorrect for the previous content, which is also undesirable.
The reason is that you now have a handy little button that says permalink or quote.
Oh true, it will only quote the one line worth quoting now! We had permalinks on Vanilla 1 as well though, but it never was as thoroughly accurate in pointing out the exact line of interest as this new implementation of this feature is!
As a result, it is okay to post more than 1 time in a row.
The reason is that you now have a handy little button that says permalink or quote.
That's the idea, yes.
also apparenly you can't quote 2 people in your post anymore... (or it's the IE again)
P.S. I have developed clairvoyance, and can now predict the SHA1 hash of the next post. Shame SHA1 is not reversible though... here it is: 033854a616c8bbb3afcb3b0f9ebe189f9cdb8db2
I am not aware of any bans on me at present, I appear to be able to post without problem. Getting banned for the shit you do is better than not you know.
Except that excessive pointless multi-posting is considered spam, a bannable offense.
Actually, the rules are, and I quote:
Be mindful of your grammar and spelling.
Post intelligently
Don't be annoying.
The only heading under which your "spam" idea would fit is "Don't be annoying" which is the most subjective and prone-to-abuse "rule" there is on these forums. As evidenced by history.
Except that excessive pointless multi-posting is considered spam, a bannable offense.
Actually, the rules are, and I quote:
Be mindful of your grammar and spelling.
Post intelligently
Don't be annoying.
The only heading under which your "spam" idea would fit is "Don't be annoying" which is the most subjective and prone-to-abuse "rule" there is on these forums. As evidenced by history.
Guess what spam is? Annoying unintelligent posting.
Guess what spam is? Annoying unintelligent posting.
So why aren't you banned then? In Boe Joomer's example, there's nothing unintelligent being brought up in the group of posts. Whether it's annoying or not is your opinion.
@Boe Joomer: 1) Obviously a single post should be a complete thought, as opposed to what you did above. If it isn't complete, don't post it until it is! 2) Those posts were made within much less than 15 minutes of each other, so you could easily have made a single post. 3) It is okay to post more than 1 time in a row in general, but it's not okay to spam, whatever mechanism you happen to use to do it. It would be no different to if you put a ton of pointless images in one post, or just decided to make a post with massive amounts of whitespace. 4) You completely missed my main point about multi-posting, which was that of logical separation. A good example is what I did here - I was responding to two different people about two different things, so double-posting easily made more sense than editing the first post. Moreover, someone could have posted something else while I was editing the new response into the first post, which would have screwed with the logical flow of the discussion.
We should probably get the issue with quoting people with weird characters in their usernames fixed too. There might be a solution involving different ways to encode the characters or something like that, e.g. %20 for spaces, or the + character.
@Boe Joomer: 1) Obviously a single post should be a complete thought, as opposed to what you did above. If it isn't complete, don't post it until it is!
It is a complete thought. It just simply happens to be rather small. I'm wondering how you're trying to look into my mind to see how you determined wither or not my thoughts were complete. Unless by complete thought you mean complete a paragraph?
2) Those posts were made within much less than 15 minutes of each other, so you could easily have made a single post.
Okay, I'll wait for the 15 minutes to pass for next time.
3) It is okay to post more than 1 time in a row in general, but it's not okay to spam, whatever mechanism you happen to use to do it. It would be no different to if you put a ton of pointless images in one post, or just decided to make a post with massive amounts of whitespace.
Thanks for the tip, but I think we already got it covered that it's not spam. A friendly tip in return: It was annoying having to go through your post to modify it with blockquotes. If you made separate posts it would makes things so much easier. We can't select any part of the post to quote now, so it quotes the whole damn thing.
4) You completely missed my main point about multi-posting, which was that of logical separation. A good example is what I did here - I was responding to two different people about two different things, so double-posting easily made more sense than editing the first post. Moreover, someone could have posted something else while I was editing the new response into the first post, which would have screwed with the logical flow of the discussion.
Considering that Air. Co. responded to my last post within the same minute, editing my original post would have dodged a bullet. if it took me half a minute more and I actually edited my first post, I would have disrupted the flow of the conversation.
Yes, "thought" was the wrong choice of word. Completing a paragraph in a single post would have been a good start, but obviously a lot of the time it makes sense for a single post to contain multiple connected paragraphs rather than just one. A better word would be something along the lines of "idea", but either way it's pretty obvious you should finish it.
What you chose to do instead in that other post was definitely annoying, and more importantly, Scott didn't like it and he has all the authority around here.
Comments
However, I don't think it's a good idea. Consider Ro's example, where there's a somewhat older thread you want to add new content to, and you happen to be the last poster in that thread. How will the forum tell people there is new content? After all, there aren't actually any new posts in the thread, so you can't have it saying "1 New", can you? Do you then bother to introduce a different message along the lines of "Last Post Updated" - that would be significantly more effort, and pretty hard to justify, in my opinion.
But, yeah, I guess it's a good point.
<hr />. That way, there's a clear separation between the 2 posts, but maximum screenspace is used.Speaking of screenspace, why doesn't the forum scale horizontally yet? Didn't someone write a theme for this specific reason?
<hr>is a decent form of visual separation, but how do you resolve the issue with informing users of the presence of new content? After all, you can't say there is "1 New Post", can you?There's also a clash with the edit time limit, since if your post is merged into your previous one, you can't fix problems with it. I guess this could be resolved by resetting the timestamp, but then that makes the timestamp incorrect for the previous content, which is also undesirable.
also apparenly you can't quote 2 people in your post anymore... (or it's the IE again)
P.S. I have developed clairvoyance, and can now predict the SHA1 hash of the next post. Shame SHA1 is not reversible though...
here it is: 033854a616c8bbb3afcb3b0f9ebe189f9cdb8db2
Lol at the shitty blockquote implementation. Now it's proper, yet still wrongly attributed! Enjoy Jason.
1) Obviously a single post should be a complete thought, as opposed to what you did above. If it isn't complete, don't post it until it is!
2) Those posts were made within much less than 15 minutes of each other, so you could easily have made a single post.
3) It is okay to post more than 1 time in a row in general, but it's not okay to spam, whatever mechanism you happen to use to do it. It would be no different to if you put a ton of pointless images in one post, or just decided to make a post with massive amounts of whitespace.
4) You completely missed my main point about multi-posting, which was that of logical separation. A good example is what I did here - I was responding to two different people about two different things, so double-posting easily made more sense than editing the first post. Moreover, someone could have posted something else while I was editing the new response into the first post, which would have screwed with the logical flow of the discussion.
Thanks for the tip, but I think we already got it covered that it's not spam. A friendly tip in return: It was annoying having to go through your post to modify it with blockquotes. If you made separate posts it would makes things so much easier. We can't select any part of the post to quote now, so it quotes the whole damn thing. Considering that Air. Co. responded to my last post within the same minute, editing my original post would have dodged a bullet. if it took me half a minute more and I actually edited my first post, I would have disrupted the flow of the conversation.
What you chose to do instead in that other post was definitely annoying, and more importantly, Scott didn't like it and he has all the authority around here.