- 6,009
- Austin, Texas
- D-Nitrate / GTP_DNitrate
I keep seeing members being chastised for "double posting", and while I certainly understand why this would be frowned upon if the offenders where purposefully breaking apart a single response into several posts one immeadiately after the other (as in seconds) in order to boost the post count, but why is it possibly being considered inappropriate to post a second message after several minutes?
I even saw someone get chastised for double posting when the previous post was made a day earlier!
Unlike when you post a new message, when you edit a message there is no indication from the list of threads or list of subscribed threads, that anything new has been added.
After all, if they simply edited the previous post and added the new message, anyone who read the thread after the first post would never know that a new message was added to it unless you are in the habit of re-reading the same posts looking for changes.
Furthermore, having been involved with other forums, I have found when members post multiple responses in the same post, especially when the topics and the members they are addressing are widely different, that it makes it that much more "cluttered" and less coherent.
Sort of like when an author does not start a new chapter or even a paragraph when the topic shifts, or when someone does not pause for very long when the dialogue changes in a conversation.
Despite my personal feelings about how to make posts less cluttered and more coherent, at the very least, I really do not understand why anyone would encourage someone to simply edit their earlier post in order to incorporate a new message when it is being generated several minutes later. Doing so would mean that many members monitoring that particular thread would never see the added message.
Either that, or the message being broadcast to GTP members is that if you want to be sure you are reading all the messages from other members, you'll not only have to re-read every single post that has ever been "edited" in the event the author had to add a new message to it to avoid a double post. But that you'll also have to go back and continue to review older threads to see if the last post has been edited to include a new message seeing as their is currently no alert system that would let you know that thread has been updated with an edit.
It just seems very counterproductive to encourage members to edit their last posts unless it has only been a few seconds.
I even saw someone get chastised for double posting when the previous post was made a day earlier!
Unlike when you post a new message, when you edit a message there is no indication from the list of threads or list of subscribed threads, that anything new has been added.
After all, if they simply edited the previous post and added the new message, anyone who read the thread after the first post would never know that a new message was added to it unless you are in the habit of re-reading the same posts looking for changes.
Furthermore, having been involved with other forums, I have found when members post multiple responses in the same post, especially when the topics and the members they are addressing are widely different, that it makes it that much more "cluttered" and less coherent.
Sort of like when an author does not start a new chapter or even a paragraph when the topic shifts, or when someone does not pause for very long when the dialogue changes in a conversation.
Despite my personal feelings about how to make posts less cluttered and more coherent, at the very least, I really do not understand why anyone would encourage someone to simply edit their earlier post in order to incorporate a new message when it is being generated several minutes later. Doing so would mean that many members monitoring that particular thread would never see the added message.
Either that, or the message being broadcast to GTP members is that if you want to be sure you are reading all the messages from other members, you'll not only have to re-read every single post that has ever been "edited" in the event the author had to add a new message to it to avoid a double post. But that you'll also have to go back and continue to review older threads to see if the last post has been edited to include a new message seeing as their is currently no alert system that would let you know that thread has been updated with an edit.
It just seems very counterproductive to encourage members to edit their last posts unless it has only been a few seconds.