Quick reply?

[RobertD63]

Is there anyway we could implement the quick reply. I mean I know you can because its VB 3.7 but can you? I and other members (I assume) find it easier.

 

[WildCowboy]

This has come up a number of times, and we've always declined to do it because we prefer that people think before they post. It sounds dumb, but making people actually go through the effort of loading another page decreases the "chattiness" of the discussion and increases post quality.

But that's certainly not to say that it's a final decision, and we appreciate continued suggestions and discussion regarding these types of things.

 

[RobertD63]

I see where your coming from. I do think its a hassle to post though. I can live though. I do hope to see it in the future though!

 

[Dejavu]

A quick reply would be nice since it saves on server resources. Convenient too. I think this fear about it increasing chattiness is unfounded and unless you've tried, you cannot make that claim.

 

[iJohnHenry]

Quick Reply does not give you the full options with which to "express" yourself.

I'm with the Board on this one.

 

[RobertD63]

Note the screen shot.

 

[Blue Velvet]

I think this fear about it increasing chattiness is unfounded and unless you've tried, you cannot make that claim.

Many of us have experience of other forums.

 

[Dejavu]

So you primarily equate having a Quick Reply feature with chattiness/spamminess on other forums, and that not the culture/subject matter/moderation temperament/forum rules to be more important criteria?

But more importantly, what are you doing up so early?

 

[Blue Velvet]

So you primarily equate having a Quick Reply feature with chattiness/spamminess on other forums, and that not the culture/subject matter/moderation temperament/forum rules to be more important criteria?

It's not a matter of one or the other, but why make chatting any easier?

This is the eighth thread requesting this feature. In the first, Arn gave this reply:

The main reason I didn't turn it on is because of threading.

With the current system, you hit "quote" to reply to a particular post in the thread. This enables the system to track threads. (see Display Mode -> Threaded View)

If people enable Quick Replay, you either lose this threading (since you can't tell who people are replying to)...

OR

You have to force the person to click on the post they are "quick replying" to... which is a confusing system and defeats the purpose of quick replay.

That's why it's not on.
arn

And Mudbug, another forum admin gave this reply:

we've got it turned off because it makes it far too easy to spam. It's there, but it's off.

And in 2006 on the same topic, Doctor Q also replied with this:

It encourages more posting with less thought. And that's been enough to settle the question.

I'm just reiterating the admin's conventional and long-held wisdom on this.

 

[Dejavu]

OK. Thanks for that. I should point out arn's post said nothing about it increasing chattiness. Who actually reads MacRumors in threaded mode?

DoctorQ's quote you snipped out the first sentence which refers to this post:

It has... the hesitation is that it might encourage spamming or repeat posts.

I've highlighted the pertinent word, which still doesn't answer the question.

I find it convenient, but not completely necessary so I won't belabour the point. Although.... Quick Reply would be immensely useful in the Friday Chatterbox threads. Imagine it, could be the highlight of my Friday nights.

 

[SlasherDuff]

At first when I joined here, I thought QuickReply would be good, then I changed my mind. I like having the opportunity to edit my posts, read over them and fix mistakes if I can.That is, if spot them in time.

 

[iMpathetic]

I was just thinking of asking this, seems like someone beat me to it.

I would like to point out that, if your Internet is slow or acting up, it requires you load two pages if you're not using quick reply. (Math correct? To the reply, back to the thread?)

Many a post has been stopped by time constraints, like yesterday....

"Shouldn't you be studying?"

"Um.... *types*"

"TURN THAT OFF NOW!!!"

That never saw the light of day. I can't remember what it was I was posting, but I'm sure it was a matter pf pressing importance.

 

[Blue Velvet]

I've highlighted the pertinent word, which still doesn't answer the question.

The pertinent word, as you refer to it, was posted by a moderator. Four of a kind of moderators is still trumped by three of a kind of forum administrators.

 

[Schtumple]

This simple formula should help OP understand the situation

Quick reply = mountains of "+1" posts...

 

[Dejavu]

The pertinent word, as you refer to it, was posted by a moderator.

devilot was not a moderator when he made that post.

 

[Schtumple]

devilot was not a moderator when he made that post.

But later became one, because they were deemed the responsibility of becoming one, it just shows that devilot had the right ideas and thoughts to be made into a mod...

 

[GeeYouEye]

A couple of points.

1. I think there's a hack so that QR posts without a parent become children of the OP, similar to how regular replies do.

1b. But really, does anyone read any vBulletin board in threaded mode anyway?

2. I don't think QR makes threads chattier (based on experience). Those who want to be chatty are definitely not stopped by one extra mouse click - read any new product announcement thread here.

 

[MacsBestFriend]

This simple formula should help OP understand the situation

Quick reply = mountains of "+1" posts...

Is there a way the admins could put rating in the forum posts? I always want to say +1, but I hate them and think they waste the post count just as much as the next person.

 

[RobertD63]

Thats why you put a limit of minimum characters in a post. Like 10 then you wont have retards posting "+1"

 

[CalBoy]

Is there a way the admins could put rating in the forum posts? I always want to say +1, but I hate them and think they waste the post count just as much as the next person.

Ratings have been discussed many times, and the general feeling most veteran site members have is that it would create a too competitive atmosphere that loses its focus from what the forums are intended to be.

After you spend some time in the forums, you will automatically get a sense of who gives good advice and who doesn't; that is arguably the best rating system there can be as it is one that was created by you, tailored for you, and changeable by no one but you.

Thats why you put a limit of minimum characters in a post. Like 10 then you wont have retards posting "+1"

Succinctness doesn't imply a lack of merit.

The mods here are fairly good, and posts that are "+1" or in the same spirit are generally removed with haste.

Help them out by reporting posts.

 

[mgguy]

The mods here are fairly good, and posts that are "+1" or in the same spirit are generally removed with haste.

I'm sorry, but can you tell me, what do you mean by posts that are +1?

 

[CalBoy]

I'm sorry, but can you tell me, what do you mean by posts that are +1?

"+1" posts are ones that quote another previous post in the thread and merely add "+1." They basically agree with the quoted post, but offer nothing new to the discussion.

Since they're also quick and easy to write, they're viewed as a tad spamish by the rules.

 

[mgguy]

"+1" posts are ones that quote another previous post in the thread and merely add "+1." They basically agree with the quoted post, but offer nothing new to the discussion.

Since they're also quick and easy to write, they're viewed as a tad spamish by the rules.

As you explain it, +1 posts with not other information add nothing to the discussion and essentially amounts to a poll. I guess those who disagree would just have to post -1 to indicate their dissent. Very lame.

 

[CalBoy]

As you explain it, +1 posts with not other information add nothing to the discussion and essentially amounts to a poll. I guess those who disagree would just have to post -1 to indicate their dissent. Very lame.

Which is exactly why the rules specify not to write such short and simple posts. Substance is the key; a poll can be added to any thread and if the thread was intended to have one, it would.

 

[msmth928]

Why no quick reply?

I find it quite tedious having to click on 'reply' each time I want to post!

Can someone turn this on please?