What constitutes "consecutive posting"? If 5 people have replied to me in a thread I'm using to hitting "Quote" on each of them and addressing them as separate posts. But here for some reason that's not allowed and I'm expected to gather up all the text from anyone who's replied to me (ever?) and put all those inside quotes in one post and address them all there? No other forum I've even been on cares about this and it seems ill-defined to the point that any mod can ignore or punish as they please since there is no hard and fast rule I've seen.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Forum rules need clarification - consecutive posting
- Thread starter ped
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The multi-quote button works perfectly fine.
You hit them on each post you want to quote, and on the last one, you hit the Quote button.
You hit them on each post you want to quote, and on the last one, you hit the Quote button.
Maybe the rules should say precisely that, showing the multi-quote button's icon, so readers know it's not just decorative.
https://macrumors.zendesk.com/hc/en-us#How_do_I_post_a_reply.3F
All that's required is that people take the time to read the Forum Rules and the FAQ, links to both of which are on every forum page (they're not just decorative, either):
Not good enough, the button should be flashing rainbow colors so that it can grab my attention. The rules don't mention anything about me having to hover over any button.
/joking
If by "punish" you mean sending a warning via the forum's built-in infraction system, that's simply a reminder, which is also clearly explained in the rules:
(Emphasis mine.)
And no, we're not supposed to ignore them. So if you see consecutive posts somewhere, report them (use the report button) and we'll clean them up. It's not a huge deal; we do it to keep threads a bit cleaner and easier to read.
Agreed - I don't think I've even seen a multiquote button. Never seen such a "feature" (and I'm not sure I'd call it a good feature). Namely because it confuses viewers since it combines messages to multiple posters in one message. And, frankly, I don't see the point of it. If I'm replying to 4 posters and I hit Quote and reply to each of them with one post each, why is that a problem? it's far easier to follow the flow of conversation that way.
If by "punish" you mean sending a warning via the forum's built-in infraction system, that's simply a reminder, which is also clearly explained in the rules:
(Emphasis mine.)
And no, we're not supposed to ignore them. So if you see consecutive posts somewhere, report them (use the report button) and we'll clean them up. It's not a huge deal; we do it to keep threads a bit cleaner and easier to read.
And what if there are posts to you across 2 or 3 pages of the thread? This again underscores my point that it's too arbitrary of a rule.
You've been around for 6 years and have never seen a button that appears on every single post? As Spock would say: "Fascinating!" Your powers of observation are impressive!
Use of the multi-quote is not confusing at all to readers. The responses are clearly associated with the posts they refer to, whether they're on the same page or not.
Each quoted post has a link
It's funny that you should say that. I'm color blind and I can't tell if the multi-quote button is selected or not. It would be easier for me if the vBulletin forum software had different graphics for that button. Flashing rainbow colors sounds good!Not good enough, the button should be flashing rainbow colors so that it can grab my attention. The rules don't mention anything about me having to hover over any button.
/joking
So just to be clear, if a person leaves a thread for a few days they're expected to read through the entirety of the rest of thread (not being able to post any replies to people as they go) and then hit the multiquote button and reply once for however many replies there were to them throughout the thread or else they can expect to be banned or otherwise disciplined?
Does anyone else find that an awkward way to reply? I think of replies *while I'm reading the messages others have posted to me*. To have to delay them to finish reading the entire thread and then go back and collect them all with multiquote and try to recall what I was going to say to each isn't very feasible, IMO.
Does anyone else find that an awkward way to reply? I think of replies *while I'm reading the messages others have posted to me*. To have to delay them to finish reading the entire thread and then go back and collect them all with multiquote and try to recall what I was going to say to each isn't very feasible, IMO.
Except, as I mentioned, this method completely disrupts your thought processes and it's unlikely your replies will be the same (or the same quality) as they would have been, had you been able to post replies as you read the messages to you. I'm surprised less people on here feel that way, if they indeed do. I've been on Delphi.com debating for 12+ years and once you get used to doing things the way I described (posting replies as you read messages) it's going to feel very unnatural to do them the way this forum requires.
Just my 2 pence...
I agreed with the multi-quote previously (for reasons mentioned above), but now with post ratings, I feel that keeping replies separate has value - for slightly different reasons to the OP..
I find ratings very useful. I'm one who misses them on Front Page articles. I found them handy to gauge not only general community consensus either positive or negative on a topic (sometimes it wasn't obvious whether the information in an article was good or bad), but it also let me see (crudely) the level of interest of an article by simply seeing the number of votes.
When I'm short on time at work, I'll scan the article comments and read the ones which are voted highly negative or positive - thus keeping my focus on comments which are likely to be thought provoking, insightful, funny etc and steering away from the more mundane ones.
When I have more time and I'm reading MacRumours at my leisure, I'll join in and rate individual posts up or down. However on a number of occasions, due to multi-quoting it's split my opinion on whether the comment is good or bad.
For example, take a comment with a 3 part multi-quote reply. The first bit of the reply may be very useful info which I would like to flag as positive to highlight its worth to the community. However the remaining 2 parts of the multi-quote reply contains incorrect info - I'd want to down-vote this info. With multi-quoting I can't separate the good and bad in the post. I either up, down or don't rank the comment. If I up-vote the comment bad info may be seen as positive to the community. If I down-vote then good info may be lost. If I do nothing, the bad info may be seen as innocuous.
In the grand scheme of things it seems minor - but let's say the above fictional 3 part response detailed information on re-building an iPhoto library. The first bit of info may help users of the forum salvage photos which may other wise be lost. Following the 2 bits of bad info in the multi-quote reply may result in permanent photo loss. To inexperienced computer users looking for info on the forums these votes may be of importance.
I agreed with the multi-quote previously (for reasons mentioned above), but now with post ratings, I feel that keeping replies separate has value - for slightly different reasons to the OP..
I find ratings very useful. I'm one who misses them on Front Page articles. I found them handy to gauge not only general community consensus either positive or negative on a topic (sometimes it wasn't obvious whether the information in an article was good or bad), but it also let me see (crudely) the level of interest of an article by simply seeing the number of votes.
When I'm short on time at work, I'll scan the article comments and read the ones which are voted highly negative or positive - thus keeping my focus on comments which are likely to be thought provoking, insightful, funny etc and steering away from the more mundane ones.
When I have more time and I'm reading MacRumours at my leisure, I'll join in and rate individual posts up or down. However on a number of occasions, due to multi-quoting it's split my opinion on whether the comment is good or bad.
For example, take a comment with a 3 part multi-quote reply. The first bit of the reply may be very useful info which I would like to flag as positive to highlight its worth to the community. However the remaining 2 parts of the multi-quote reply contains incorrect info - I'd want to down-vote this info. With multi-quoting I can't separate the good and bad in the post. I either up, down or don't rank the comment. If I up-vote the comment bad info may be seen as positive to the community. If I down-vote then good info may be lost. If I do nothing, the bad info may be seen as innocuous.
In the grand scheme of things it seems minor - but let's say the above fictional 3 part response detailed information on re-building an iPhoto library. The first bit of info may help users of the forum salvage photos which may other wise be lost. Following the 2 bits of bad info in the multi-quote reply may result in permanent photo loss. To inexperienced computer users looking for info on the forums these votes may be of importance.
Last edited:
If you have time, then you could reply to that post and address each point separately. That would fix your issue. I could see this being a problem if you're just browsing quickly while at work or something similar.
You should of course reply and correct the bad info
But seriously speaking, thanks for the reply. We are always open for constructive feedback and in this case your reply was perfect (detail description of the issue and a good real word example, and in a friendly way)
I'm not sure have we even thought about that from this angle since what you say is 100% true. I have to say that I have faced the same issue sometimes, although I rarely use the voting system.I was warned about this rule today. I'm not sure if it applies to me (the mods already changed my original post(s) so who knows what it looked like). Example:
-Person 1 makes a post at 10:15
-I am replying to Person 1 at 10:15-10:16 but have not pressed Submit Reply yet
-Person 2 is making a comment on the same thread while I am in the process of writing my comment
-Person 2 submits at 10:16
-I submit at 10:16 seconds after Person 2
-My screen refreshes automatically or I manually refresh it 2-5 mins later to see if Person 1 replied to my reply
-I notice Person 2's comments
-I reply to Person 2
I don't think, in the above example, that I am breaking any rule. Many threads here move fast...numerous posts per minute...If I want to contribute, I'm not going to wait 15-30 minutes to reply and/or see if anyone else writes the same exact thing I want to write.
I agree, however, that going through 5 pages of a thread and replying to individual comments 1 at a time (say the thread is 3 hours old) is not the best and hence violates this rule...because likely what I am replying to on Page 2 was already addressed on Page 3 or 4 or 5 and I am just filling up the thread with lots of posts.
Anyway...just a bit annoyed that I was warned and then my original post was altered so I have no idea exactly how to defend my actions.
Mad Mac Maniac
macrumors 601
Yeah, actually I have thought that myself. But not necessarily about multiquote. A person certainly doesn't need to use multiquote to say something good and bad in a single post!! I'll see posts all the time that Have a paragraph or a sentence that I want to +up, but then there are other parts that I want to -down.
I partially agree with you. I actually had something similar happen to me. But in this situation you should edit your post to respond to person 2. I actually asked the mod what to do in a situation that you have already posted and there is another person you want to respond to. He recommended opening "quote" in a new tab, then copy/paste the quote into your edited post. Kind of an annoying workaround but it works
edit: just wanted to let you know. That's actually what I did to respond to your post
Last edited:
Good for you. Things are done differently here. Deal with it.
In this case just use the "Edit" feature and include the new information if you want to.