PDA

View Full Version : People quoting news sites....annoying!


NusuniAdmin
Jun 21, 2004, 03:35 PM
It is very terribly annoying when people quote and take 25+ lines off of news sites and make in the first post in a thread. We need to get a reasonable limit on size of our posts. It is annoying to click a thread and have it take forever to load.

it is also annoying when people quote the first post when its big like that...i dont mean partly quote..i mean the whole thing! It is very annoying when 5+ people do that then it takes forever to load and stuff.

Please we need some sort of limit or rule to regulate this kinda thing. If there is one then can anyone give me a link to it?

edit: We also need a rule so when people use quotes off a website in the first post that they NEED some sort of source. it is most annoying to click on one and see no source at all...those are the exact threads i do not respond to...and if all they did was put a simple source i would.

edesignuk
Jun 21, 2004, 03:39 PM
Solution = broadband ;) :eek:

Sorry, had to. Anyway, it's only text, it can't take that long to load.

mkrishnan
Jun 21, 2004, 04:00 PM
edit: We also need a rule so when people use quotes off a website in the first post that they NEED some sort of source. it is most annoying to click on one and see no source at all...those are the exact threads i do not respond to...and if all they did was put a simple source i would.

So if we want to start a thread to talk about you behind your back, we should start with a un-linked quote? :p Seriously, I think this part is a good suggestion. It's just good forum etiquette to let people see the original....

Seriously, as for the length, I like it when there's a little bit of a tease so I can see if I wanna read the article, but I'm usually not *irritated* by an extensive quote.

NusuniAdmin
Jun 21, 2004, 04:51 PM
i have a 2.5 mbit cable line thank you very much. But it is irritating to see really long posts....i just thought some other people on this site my have the same feelings but i guess not.

King Cobra
Jun 21, 2004, 05:13 PM
Well I have 28.8K, and those long quote things don't take long for me to load. And I can't get broadband...

I think what should be done is more like the 2002 style of MacRumors in which news articles were posted with the title, the link, and then one key paragraph. But I think to convince readers to click the link and read, quote two or three (short) key paragraphs that have the interesting details of the article. Readers will tend to think that there might be more details and that they might be in the rest of the article.

wordmunger
Jun 21, 2004, 05:17 PM
Sometimes the reason people include long quotes is because an article requires registration or even a subscription charge. I can see that as a reason for such a long quote.

I'm more annoyed by long quotes from a post in the same discussion. Please cut it down to the relevant portion. None of this is a particularly big deal, though. I'm more annoyed by insubstantial "I agree" posts than overquoting posts.

Sun Baked
Jun 21, 2004, 05:20 PM
I think what should be done is more like the 2002 style of MacRumors in which news articles were posted with the title, the link, and then one key paragraph. But I think to convince readers to click the link and read, quote two or three (short) key paragraphs that have the interesting details of the article. Readers will tend to think that there might be more details and that they might be in the rest of the article.Some people are doing that, but they the eternally lazy chime in and ask for the entire article to be posted.

But, your link don't work and signing up for NYTimes would take to long for me to be able to read the article... http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10327

rainman::|:|
Jun 21, 2004, 05:32 PM
Generally speaking, posting the article in partial or entirety is a courtesy, especially when the site requires registration. But more than long first posts, what pisses me off is people that spend their entire day searching for news articles (often from the same source) that are redundant, boring, and only wind up getting a few replies (most of them "yeah, we knew this a long time ago"). I mean, to share a news story with the community is one thing, and i think we all learn a lot from these little tidbits. But is it really necessary to make a career out of posting health articles from the boston channel? i mean, couldn't we just go there ourselves if we cared?

paul

NusuniAdmin
Jun 21, 2004, 05:39 PM
what pisses me off is people that spend their entire day searching for news articles (often from the same source) that are redundant, boring, and only wind up getting a few replies paul

yes...i definitly agree there. An article about a monkey giving birth to a 2 headed cow..that would be cool. But an article about finding an ancient spoon in the greenlands would be a waste of time for most of us.

Sun Baked
Jun 21, 2004, 05:52 PM
yes...i definitly agree there. An article about a monkey giving birth to a 2 headed cow..that would be cool. But an article about finding an ancient spoon in the greenlands would be a waste of time for most of us.Sorry...

How to make a sock monkey (http://www.nil8.com/monkeymaker.html) is all I can come up with on short notice.
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=12555&stc=1

windowsblowsass
Jun 21, 2004, 09:18 PM
yes...i definitly agree there. An article about a monkey giving birth to a 2 headed cow..that would be cool. But an article about finding an ancient spoon in the greenlands would be a waste of time for most of us.

omg monkey... two headed cow holy **** :eek:

Elan0204
Jun 21, 2004, 10:00 PM
I have no problem with a long initial post. I like having the article right there, without all the ads and images that load when you click on the link to the source site. Text doesn't take that long to load, so I'd think that you would be happier not having to click on a link where you'll have to load images and ads just to read the text. Of course you should always include a link, and cite your source so we know the news is in fact legitimate.

What I do have a problem with, however, is people who quote very long posts. People need to realize that they can edit what they quote, so that only the relevant parts are quoted. I often only quote the one or two sentences that are really relevant to my post, so the person reading it knows just enough to understand what I'm writing. I think worrying about eliminating the needlessly long quoting would do a lot more for the entire forum than worrying about long first posts inside the community discussion area.

CmdrLaForge
Jun 22, 2004, 10:50 AM
What I do have a problem with, however, is people who quote very long posts. People need to realize that they can edit what they quote, so that only the relevant parts are quoted. I often only quote the one or two sentences that are really relevant to my post, so the person reading it knows just enough to understand what I'm writing. I think worrying about eliminating the needlessly long quoting would do a lot more for the entire forum than worrying about long first posts inside the community discussion area.

I agree. Thats really a problem. I guess sometimes it just happens to get the post counts up. It happens that people quote a really long post and just type "right!" Thats annoying.

King Cobra
Jun 22, 2004, 12:41 PM
It could be worse (http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article09-208)...

Cite: I forget who posted the original link here on MR to that site.

davecuse
Jun 22, 2004, 01:53 PM
It could be worse (http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article09-208)...

Cite: I forget who posted the original link here on MR to that site.
Pretty amusing.

On topic, I too disagree with the original post. I rather enjoy having the full text of the article on hand so that I don't have to go out to some other website to read it. I find that if the article is not sitting in front of me, I don't normally take the effort to go out and read it before I toss in my 2 cents.

On another note, I hate when people (1 in this forum who is now happily on my ignore list) post opinion articles from some guys blog and treats them as though they are facts from the NYT, ok bad example but you know what i mean.