Forum etiquette - this is not a lecture, I pwomise.

[JesterJ.]

So I was going to rip on Dreamer in the Prison thread about this, but that might make it sound personal. It's not. And I'm really most sincerely not angry about it any way. Just curious.

Over the years there have been many, many, many instances of necroposting, doubleposting, or even (GASP) TRIPLE-posting. It seems some people are genuinely offended by it. This issue is something I can't understand at all. Why would having to look at somebody's avatar twice offend you so much? Why does somebody bringing a new view to an old topic (or even an OLD view to an old topic) offend to such a large degree?


Do you care if somebody double-posts? Why?
Do you care if somebody necroposts? Why?

[Nevrmore]

Was that a serious attempt at spelling "etiquette?"

[DmitriW]

Dreamer in the Prison

If this isn't a song title, it should be.

Do you care if somebody double-posts? Why?
Do you care if somebody necroposts? Why?

Double-posts are a bit annoying, but it's hard for me to explain why. It just seems terribly inefficient to me to make two posts when you could just make one slightly-longer post.

Necroposting doesn't bother me too much at all, but I try to avoid doing it myself. Most of the time, anyway.

[JesterJ.]

Was that a serious attempt at spelling "etiquette?"

Ohh quiet you.

[Nevrmore]

I don't mind double posting if it's a joke. For instance, awhile ago on a different forum, someone was asked jokingly if they had been cured of their multiple personality disorder. They doubleposted, one saying "Yes." and one saying "No." That's fine, I think. Triple posting is always annoying, though. If you have to triple post to make a joke, the joke's too long.

I don't really give a shit about necroposting.

[JesterJ.]

Why is doubleposting an issue at all, though? Is it really so bad to have to look at somebody's avatar twice?

[Bananafish]

If you're the type of person who gets angry at someone posting too much on the internet then you have bigger problems.

[Bananafish]

UGH HE'S POSTING SO MUCH I CAN'T TAKE IT

[Gordon Fearman]

What's necroposting?

[Annchan]

I think the problem with double posting so that you can continue the conversation is a little rude. Say what you need to in one post, edit it if need be and wait for responses.
Necros are only annoying when they are done just to be silly. If there is something to add go for it but doing so just for the sake of it is just as annoying as someone making a bunch of new dumb threads just for the sake of it too.

[Master Gunner]

I don't like double/triple posts because they're pointless and take up extra space. Three one-line posts in a row is wholly unnecessary, and in long posts, posting multiple times doesn't break it up any more than a couple line breaks and a quote box does. Besides, you're already right there in the post-reply field, why take the extra time to post and go back when you can just stay there?

So in short, why are you double posting WHEN YOU HAVE FUCKING SPACE JUMP???

[JesterJ.]

Necros are only annoying when they are done just to be silly.

But why? I don't get that. Are any and all posts annoying when they are done just to be silly? Why does it matter if it was an older topic as opposed to a new one?

I've honestly never gone to a thread, read through it, been about to reply and gone "OOOOH SHIT THIS IS OVER A MONTH OLD. BETTER RETHINK THIS."


Is it just because you've already seen the thread so it's an annoyance to click through something yet again? To me that isn't cumbersome at all, but it's a matter of opinion, so I can understand if it's an annoyance.

[TorachiKatashi]

Necro-posting is when you post in a thread that hasn't been posted in for a long time. The limit on most forums is two months or so.

I think that's one of the big things I like about LRR - even if some people (myself included) get annoyed by double-posting or necroing a thread, a mod isn't going to storm in and nail you to the fucking wall over it.

I think the only reason double posting annoys me is for the fact that after being a part of so many tight-assed forums who lose their mind over that stuff, it's almost second nature. Much the same way there are little things that are considered "rude" though no one really knows what is rude about them, just that they've been told their whole lives that it is.

Necroing annoys me only because I'm always the dumbass who doesn't read the dates and responds to the new post along with two or three posts from a year ago.

[Gordon Fearman]

Wow, being mad at necroposting is retarded. Seriously, shame on all of you.

[theDreamer]

Ok, so, I've thought long and hard about this, because I want to be honest, and actually deleted my post a few times because it wasn't right.

It is entirely based upon my perceptions, and I am aware of that, and I could actually quite easily be told that I am entirely wrong, and to shut up and sit in the corner. And if you really want me to, I will, but at least listen first.

I think the biggest issue to me is I think the person might be padding their post count. I think it every time I accidentally actually let myself press submit on what I deem to be a useless post. It is why I often ramble, because I want to make sure every time I post, I post something worth while.

"But why," you must be asking, "is their post count such a big deal? Tons of people play games that drastically increase their post count. Do you have an issue with them?"

No, and that makes me a hypocrite, and hate myself a little bit more.

Sometimes I feel post count is a measure of...respect. The more you post, the longer you have practically been around, the more respected you are. If someone is cheating that system by padding their post count, I feel it is a negative.

...Now that it is written out it is pretty stupid. Post count means nothing other than how many times you have posted something.

Sorry.

[Metcarfre]

Necroposting is annoying for people who read through an entire (possibly long) thread, only to realise only the last one or two comments are pertinent since the conversation passed long ago. If someone brings up something so old the original posters aren't even around the forums anymore, yeah, I get annoyed.

Double posting is innefficient.

[Bananafish]

Ok, so, I've thought long and hard about this, because I want to be honest, and actually deleted my post a few times because it wasn't right.

It is entirely based upon my perceptions, and I am aware of that, and I could actually quite easily be told that I am entirely wrong, and to shut up and sit in the corner. And if you really want me to, I will, but at least listen first.

I think the biggest issue to me is I think the person might be padding their post count. I think it every time I accidentally actually let myself press submit on what I deem to be a useless post. It is why I often ramble, because I want to make sure every time I post, I post something worth while.

"But why," you must be asking, "is their post count such a big deal? Tons of people play games that drastically increase their post count. Do you have an issue with them?"

No, and that makes me a hypocrite, and hate myself a little bit more.

Sometimes I feel post count is a measure of...respect. The more you post, the longer you have practically been around, the more respected you are. If someone is cheating that system by padding their post count, I feel it is a negative.

...Now that it is written out it is pretty stupid. Post count means nothing other than how many times you have posted something.

Sorry.

That's actually understandable, but I like to give people more credit than that. I think someone would judge a post by its own merits rather than a person's postcount.

[Bananafish]

holy shit i can feel my iq rising

[Gordon Fearman]

The more you post, the longer you have practically been around, the more respected you are.

Except for me.

Necroposting is annoying for people who read through an entire (possibly long) thread, only to realise only the last one or two comments are pertinent since the conversation passed long ago. If someone brings up something so old the original posters aren't even around the forums anymore, yeah, I get annoyed.

Yeah, it's almost like the forums have a "read latest post button". In fact, it's exactly like that. Even if it didn't, if you're not interested in the thread, why are you reading it? If you are, why does it matter how old it is?

[JohnyMcmuffin]

Necroposting is annoying for people who read through an entire (possibly long) thread, only to realise only the last one or two comments are pertinent since the conversation passed long ago. If someone brings up something so old the original posters aren't even around the forums anymore, yeah, I get annoyed.

I agree. If you look at threads as conversations, when a thread has been dead for a few months the conversation is basically over. Adding a new post doesn't usually continue the conversation because the participants have moved on, hence the lack of posts. It just ends up being weird commentary on a conversation that already happened.

[AgentGray]

double / triple posting always struck me as lazy, and by extension disrespectful. If you can't take the effort to edit/fix problems with your first post and present it in the best way possible... was your point worthy of making/being considered in the first place? Much less being that much more visually noisy and annoying without editing?

Necroposting I'm of two minds about. if it's just a mindless "REMEMBER THIS THREAD?!@" post? Burn it with fire, but if it's an honest attempt to extend the conversation then It's by far better than starting a new thread.

[Metcarfre]

@ Gordon; I'm not sure why you're so bent out of shape. It's a very, very minor annoyance to me.

[JohnyMcmuffin]

Yeah, it's almost like the forums have a "read latest post button". In fact, it's exactly like that. Even if it didn't, if you're not interested in the thread, why are you reading it? If you are, why does it matter how old it is?

The button is far from perfect, and if you haven't read any posts in the thread, it is no help. You either start at the first or jump to the last post.

The age matters because:

only the last one or two comments are pertinent since the conversation passed long ago.

edit:sorry 'bout the name metcarfre

[Lorithad]

I agree with you Dreamer. A post count does represent sort of your longevity in an online community. It's not really important, but it does reflect your knowledge of the forum.

So things that needlessly increase the post count are somewhat irritating to me. I don't see forum games as needless though, as some EPIC THREADS OF WIN can come out of them.

I'm generally fine with double posting, as long as it's been a reasonable amount of time since your first post. But if you just hit reply and forgot to mention something? That edit button is there for a reason.

Necroposting, it's really irritating to dig up a long dead thread for some comment that wouldn't have brought anything to the discussion when it was fresh. But that's about it.

[Lawman]

My thoughts on double- or triple-posting;

For the most part I'm against it. If I post something, and at a later date come up with something disjointed to it, but I was the last person to post, I might make a separate post; if the first post was short, or the things I'm writing are related, I'll edit the last post.

Ultimately, it shows a lack of knowledge. More than anything I get annoyed by the fact that people don't realise that they can edit their posts, and it won't display that it has been edited until someone else posts below it. Also, I hate signatures because they're repetitive, distracting, rarely useful and they take up space. If you double-post, that's double the signatures.

If someone double-posts for effect, them fine.

My thoughts on necromancing:

I think it depends on the type of thread. If it's a question-answer thread, and you have a follow-up question, or an additional answer, then go ahead and use the original: making a new thread just shows that you can't use a search feature. However, for things that are timely, or for looser discussion-based threads, making a new thread is fine, as long as it is clearly different from the others.

But, the fact that I think you should keep to as few threads as possible doesn't permit necromancing without good reason. You might have something relevant to say, but if it isn't useful in the long run, keep it to yourself.

I remember I was in a support forum and had a question about some technology. As it happened, there was a thread asking just what I needed, and it had an answer, which was "no, this product can't do such-and-such". That was dated two years ago. I appended my question to that thread: "Now that it's two years later, has this product been updated so that it does do such-and-such yet?". Since I explained myself with a short opening sentence, and the question was reasonable, I felt that was perfectly justified.

For timely threads, necromancing is just dumb. On another company, someone asked about when a product they ordered would arrive, and years later, people say, "call customer service and find out". A useful response for future forum readers, perhaps, but really doesn't help the oprinial poster.