Do's & Don'ts: Double Posting

Digital-Nitrate

1955-2011 R.I.P.
Premium
Messages
6,009
United States
Austin, Texas
Messages
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'm the moderator in question and would say that yes I do have an issue with double posts and when done I will (normally very politely) ask the person to not do it.

It is always done in a polite manner, I also always take the time to check the posting history of the member in question to see if it is a one off or a series of offences.

In regard to a post being added the day after by the same member I will look at it in a slightly different light, if the new post is a genuine and valid addition to the thread (and the member is not a serial double poster) then I will and have let it slide. If however the new post is simply for the purpose of 'bumping' a thread or the member has a history of double posting then I will ask them to stop.

On a more personal level I am not a big fan of double posting, and in regard to the problem of it not showing as a new post, it is an issue, but to be honest it is one I have lived with myself.

The seconds or minutes argument is totaly invalid, I'm sorry but I see no reason why a post can't be edited after a few minutes, I've edited posts to add additional information after a few hours.

Regards

Scaff
 
Yeah I agree with Scaff, at the end of the day, if you edit a post that I have already read for example, then I will still see that post when someone else replys to that thread. Because as soon as that thread gets it's next reply, it's back on top. I think new members should be gven a chance to get used to not double posting, and I think they are, for the most part anyway. If I make a post in a thread and I want to post again, I will always edit my post if there hasn't been one since the last. Or if I'm just tired and forget, which you can usually tell because my spelling goes out the window :lol:.
 
If you are worried about missing something, by all means, look over every thread you are concerned about and look for:

Last edited by Digital-Nitrate : Today at 4:01 PM.

If you see that, you know it has been edited.

Short of the massive GTP server lag from a bit ago, there really is no reason for a DP and even those were edited out.
 
Scaff
The seconds or minutes argument is totaly invalid, I'm sorry but I see no reason why a post can't be edited after a few minutes, I've edited posts to add additional information after a few hours.
It may be invalid to you, either because you are in the habit of re-reading past posts looking for edits, or just aren't interested in reading newly added responses in the last pos. There may in fact even be several people who feel the same way.

However I suspect there are also many people who do not, and would consider edits that were made several minutes apart as being quite valid and easily missed for anyone who read the thread prior to the edit being made.

It is certainly something worth considering, and not to be simply dismissed as being invalid. :(
 
Digital-Nitrate
It may be invalid to you, either because you are in the habit of re-reading past posts looking for edits, or just aren't interested in reading newly added responses in the last pos. There may in fact even be several people who feel the same way.

However I suspect there are also many people who do not, and would consider edits that were made several minutes apart as being quite valid and easily missed for anyone who read the thread prior to the edit being made.

It is certainly something worth considering, and not to be simply dismissed as being invalid. :(

And at what point do you draw the line?

After how many minutes does it stop being OK and start being a double post?

And if it within the time limit why stop at a double post, hell lets go for triple or more?

Not so easy is it.

I mean I came across 8 posts in a row by a new member the other day, all made within minutes, if not seconds of each other.

Here at GT Planet we have a policy of not double posting, it is one of the single most relaxed policies we have. Polite requests are made for members to not do it and it normally goes no further than that.

If however we blurred the line, this polite policy would be far more difficult to manage.

You are quite new to GT Planet and what is considered OK is not always the same here, and the policy on double posts works, and it works well.

I know that you have chosen to single me out on this issue (a point I am ignoring), but you are obviously not that well travelled around the whole of GT Planet if you think I am alone in asking people not to double post.

Most long standing members will ask people not to double post.

Regards

Scaff
 
I do like one point of Digital-Nitrate's statement. He points out that a edit does not get noted as an update to a thread on the last post section of a forum. If there was a way to count an edit to the last post in a thread as an update, that would be pretty convenient.
 
It would, but I think sometihng has been mentioned before and that there is no feature to do that just yet.
 
live4speed
if you edit a post that I have already read for example, then I will still see that post when someone else replys to that thread. Because as soon as that thread gets it's next reply, it's back on top.
While the thread may be on top, if you are like most others and click on the "new posts" button, it wont jump to the last post edited since you read it last, but only the last post added since you read it last... thus you will not see the editted post unless you go back and look for it.


TB
If you are worried about missing something, by all means, look over every thread you are concerned about and look for:
That's precisely my point. Many wont look for it, and like in the recent case in the Shelby Cobra - Worth Buying? thread, that member's lengthy response would have most likely not have been seen by those reading the thread within twenty minutes of its posting.

I understand why some might not care, but I can also understand why some might.
 
But you must also understand that like Scaff just said, you have to draw a line, you can't start saying yeah that ones okay but that one isn't. Who's the judge. Sure a day or more apart, provided it's not a bump is reasonable, but anything less is blurring thoes lines. And like I said, the post is easilly viewable as soon as the next person replies in the thread anyway, so if someone doesn't go back into that thread after your edit, they'll go back in after a new post. It's really not a big deal and sure there might be the odd edit done that never gets seen, but considering the alternative of double posts all over the palce, I know which I'd choose.
 
The reason this rule exists is precisely because of the slippery slope that Scaff mentions. Setting some arbitrary criterion actually blurs the issue by focusing on what exactly the criterion is rather simply than allowing discretion on the part of the staff in how it is enforced.

The rule as it stands is more valuable in more cases. Times when it does prove a bit of a problem are much more rare. An active, constructive thread is likely to be revisited by the interested members, who will then note the edited content. Or the edited content will get quoted later in the thread, bringing it to the attention of those that missed it.

Having the rule set this way allows the mods to judge, case by case, whether to mention it to a double poster or not.
 
live4speed
But you must also understand that like Scaff just said, you have to draw a line, you can't start saying yeah that ones okay but that one isn't. Who's the judge. Sure a day or more apart, provided it's not a bump is reasonable, but anything less is blurring thoes lines. And like I said, the post is easilly viewable as soon as the next person replies in the thread anyway, so if someone doesn't go back into that thread after your edit, they'll go back in after a new post. It's really not a big deal and sure there might be the odd edit done that never gets seen, but considering the alternative of double posts all over the palce, I know which I'd choose.
Well first of all lines are already not drawn, as Scaff even pointed out it is loosely enforced and is dealt with on a case by case scenario which only makes sense due to the fact that edits are often missed.

Secondly, as I said before, in an edit which you may have missed, while the thread will get bumped to the top and get your attention, when you click on "NEW", it only jumps to the beginning of the post added since you last read the thread. It does not jump to the post last edited since you read the thread... so unless you go looking for it, you wont see the edits... like how you didn’t see this explanation that I edited into my last post.


Scaff
I know that you have chosen to single me out on this issue (a point I am ignoring)
See now here is a great example of how edited posts DO GET MISSED. After re-reading what I posted I realized it did sound like I was singling you out, and I certainly had no intention of doing that, so I edited that out before anyone responded. Clearly, you read it before the edit, and did not notice the change after responding.


These edits have been done very soon after the posts were made and yet they were missed. There are better example of this, but this shows that edits do in fact go by without notice by many… even those that have suggested that edits made several minutes afterwards are easily noticeable.

It is certainly food for thought.
 
Digital-Nitrate
Well first of all lines are already not drawn, as Scaff even pointed out it is loosely enforced and is dealt with on a case by case scenario which only makes sense due to the fact that edits are often missed.
I think by loosely enforced he meant it's not seen a serious thing unless someone keeps doing it over and over. Whereas joining the forum and instantly telling people to **** off wll result in a warning, joining and double posting will result in a "could you not double post" and nothing more unless that person continues to do so regualrly. Everyone has double posted at some point I bet, but it's different when you do it by mistake or days apart and when you do it all the time.

Duke
The rule as it stands is more valuable in more cases. Times when it does prove a bit of a problem are much more rare.
I agree with this, no it isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternative of allowing people to double post.
 
Digital-Nitrate
See now here is a great example of how edited posts DO GET MISSED. After re-reading what I posted I realized it did sound like I was singling you out, and I certainly had no intention of doing that, so I edited that out before anyone responded. Clearly, you read it before the edit, and did not notice the change after responding.

And you have also posted a new message to let me know that you did not intent to single me out and that you have edited the original post to remove it.

For which I thank you, posting a new post (which would show on new posts) is what any good member would do.

Does kind of invalidate the point mind.

Regards (& thanks)


Scaff
 
It's actually quite simple. If we let people double post all the time, people would do it just to jump up their post count in some cases. Or to get their exposure up, etc.. There are many reasons to double post, but the only good reason doesn't happen nearly often enough to deter the staffs enforcement of no double posting.

Of course, 90% of the time I've seen double posting it's been by accident. :dopey:
 
Sometime I click post reply and it takes ages, then two posts appear.
 
ultrabeat
Sometime I click post reply and it takes ages, then two posts appear.

That's the thing that happens fairly often. It's quite obvious to me and I just delete the duplicate post.
 
I consider it okay when the same user is adding more information as it builds up, say with an update to events, or for presenting information after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed. Other times, it's easier to read and submit scads of info by using several posts, however, there are few occurances in which this is necessary at all.

With the advent of AJAX, the notion of "it takes too long to edit a post" is suddenly out the window. AJAX can edit a post in half the time of before, since there's less reloading time.

I think the mods ought not to be too harsh with new members, unless they are truly chronic double posters. But a gentle reminder does the trick, they may not be used to the controls and "feel" of GTP's quoting and editing system, as well as the usefullness of cuting/pasting and formatting text for better readbility.

But some members, usually those used to chatting, treat this place like a chatroom, submitting posts again and again. Years ago, this was not a problem, but it gets out of control if everyone is allowed to double post.

In a sence, I have no complaint with the way mods are presently handling most double-posting situations.
 
we need automerge and a post bumping option. On another forum I can bump threads to the top without needing to reply.
 
Well here's my view. If it's something like a guide, whereby you may have several different sections/chapters/cars etc., then a new post certainly helps for readability purposes and organisation. But if it's just a normal thread, a discussion for instance, then double posting should be avoided. Remember, you can add a reason (or several) for your edit if you use 'advanced' edit mode.

FormulaGT
 
I say no to automerge. It would screw up all my (and other people's) GT4 set-ups and how I need to post them. If there were an option to enable or disable it, I'd say ok, but it's easy enough to do an edit.

And honestly, I don't see much double posting on GTP anyway. But then again, I don't really look at the threads in the GT4 forum.
 
Poverty
On another forum I can bump threads to the top without needing to reply.
Honestly, that's a terrible idea. Why should I waste time re-reading a thread if there's no new posts? All that's going to do is clutter the forums. If a thread dies, then that's becuase nobody's interested in the topic. If you want it to get further attention, there's always the site's search engine.

I would like to see the mods merge more threads, rather than close them, but there's two problems with this:

1) It can get messy because it's going to sort by time and date of the post.
2) It might encourage threads that shouldn't have been (re-)started in the first place.
 
I say no to automerge. It would screw up all my (and other people's) GT4 set-ups and how I need to post them. If there were an option to enable or disable it, I'd say ok, but it's easy enough to do an edit.

And honestly, I don't see much double posting on GTP anyway. But then again, I don't really look at the threads in the GT4 forum.

I am with you on that one Duċk, I rarely, if at all, double post, and the only time I do see it en-mass, is when new members come in, and aren't sufficiently aware of the rules on double posting. As you say, there are also times when double posting IS required (such as your settings workshop 👍), and an automerge would render this type of thread unreadable.

What I would suggest, providing it is possible, would be to have a merge button on the second and subsequent posts of a double/triple/whatever post. That way if a Mod happens to see it, and deem the double posting unneccesary, they can issue a warning to the user, and merge the post. However I am not sure if this is possible with vBulletin or not.

Thanks,
gOoSe
 
This is just an idea I had while reading this thread, when a new post is made the thread goes to the top of the list and the threads title is displayed in bold letters, how about if when someone edits a post in a thread that thread is displayed in bold again but the thread stays where it is :)
 
I really don't think double-posting is a big enough issue here to justify any kind of forum feature to address the issue.
 
Back