NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I wrote a post "Ontological Odds and Existential Ends", and it seems like some people just read the first part and responded to that.

The problem is, the first part of the thread was describing a line of reasoning that I was actually trying to argue against. So, I had people giving retorts that I had already agreed with in my post.

In the etiquette of this kind of forum, how long can you make a post and still reasonably expect that people replying will have read the whole post?

Depends what kind of people you are dealing with.

So, I wrote a post "Ontological Odds and Existential Ends", and it seems like some people just read the first part and responded to that.

The problem is, the first part of the thread was describing a line of reasoning that I was actually trying to argue against. So, I had people giving retorts that I had already agreed with in my post.

In the etiquette of this kind of forum, how long can you make a post and still reasonably expect that people replying will have read the whole post?
Short answer ( to keep this post of mine short ): You can't, so don't. :p

Depends what kind of people you are dealing with.

I think the people in question were intelligent, and I found their replies reasonable and insightful, I'm more concerned that I made the post so long, they didn't see that they were preaching to the choir.

Look... the "long post" thing is a myth. My post is more or less average length. Besides, it's not the length of the post, it's what you can do with it.

In all honesty, it depends how much the subject matter interests me. With many topics that pop up on here I have a short attention span and don't bother with them.

So, I wrote a post "Ontological Odds and Existential Ends", and it seems like some people just read the first part and responded to that.

The problem is, the first part of the thread was describing a line of reasoning that I was actually trying to argue against. So, I had people giving retorts that I had already agreed with in my post.

In the etiquette of this kind of forum, how long can you make a post and still reasonably expect that people replying will have read the whole post?

The first post of this thread is just the right size.

Look... the "long post" thing is a myth. My post is more or less average length. Besides, it's not the length of the post, it's what you can do with it.

Yeah...guess I'll spend more time playing with my posts until they're the length I'm comfortable with...

In all honesty, it depends how much the subject matter interests me. With many topics that pop up on here I have a short attention span and don't bother with them.

But would you reply to a post without reading it all?

Some times I lose interest in extra long posts, what makes it even worse is when they have many links.

In all honesty, it depends how much the subject matter interests me. With many topics that pop up on here I have a short attention span and don't bother with them.

But would you reply to a post without reading it all?

But would you reply to a post without reading it all?

I would. And I have.

I would. And I have.

You would. But have you?

(See, the joke is, I didn't read your entire...sorry.)

I would. And I have.

Beeing a moron an even proud of it. Whoah.

St.Curie, if you have a lot to say then say it all and ignore those who are stupid enough to read only small parts and reply according to that only. Details and length are good to have, and you aren't here to satisfy lazy people with always short and always funny posts.

Beeing a moron an even proud of it. Whoah.

I love it when I'm called a moron by someone who can't spell. It makes my irony gland tingle. Thank you.

St.Curie, if you have a lot to say then say it all and ignore those who are stupid enough to read only small parts and reply according to that only. Details and length are good to have, and you aren't here to satisfy lazy people with always short and always funny posts.

Well, I know I can't always be funny, but if "always short" was desirable, I could've done that...

I hear you. Maybe I should spend more time developing the merits of my posts, and they'll hold interest better....

But would you reply to a post without reading it all?

No. If i'm feeling too lazy to read it, i'm probably too lazy to reply as well :p

St.Curie, if you have a lot to say then say it all and ignore those who are stupid enough to read only small parts and reply according to that only. Details and length are good to have, and you aren't here to satisfy lazy people with always short and always funny posts.

yes details and length are always good to have as are the occasional comma full stops and paragraphs also you may want to subject yourself to the rules of grammar and spelling if you want people to read the entirety of your posts.

[i neither heed my own advice regularly, nor was the above directed at the poster i quoted. regard the quotation as something to construct a spin-off to]

honestly, long posts will not get you very far.

most people will either back up completely from them, or only read far enough to think they got a grasp of what you are saying.
you shoudl try to either make your arguments short'n'snappy, or spend the first sentences of your post lining out the core of what you are going to say. that way, people might be more willing to read the whole post when they know there's something interesting at the end, too.

and just maybe the use of little subheadings and/or bolding of new key words/arguments can help, too, if you must write excessively long posts.

why don't you just post a highlights part at the bottom that way people don't have to spend half an hour filtering pointless dribble

TLDR



Sorry, I couldnt help myself.

So, I wrote a post "Ontological Odds and Existential Ends", and it seems like some people just read the first part and responded to that.

The problem is, the first part of the thread was describing a line of reasoning that I was actually trying to argue against. So, I had people giving retorts that I had already agreed with in my post.

In the etiquette of this kind of forum, how long can you make a post and still reasonably expect that people replying will have read the whole post?

I would say in this case it's not the length that's the problem, it's the layout. Surely if you're approaching a topic like that with a monster post, you should be laying it out like an essay, with an introduction. Would've solved the problem, anyway.

why don't you just post a highlights part at the bottom that way people don't have to spend half an hour filtering pointless dribble

Well, if its pointless dribble, making it shorter wouldn't have solved the problem, heh.

Seriously, though, bummer. Sorry if you thought it was pointless, I'll try harder (and with a clear blurb at the start or end).

\

and just maybe the use of little subheadings and/or bolding of new key words/arguments can help, too, if you must write excessively long posts.

That sounds like a good idea, for if I try a long post again.

I would say in this case it's not the length that's the problem, it's the layout. Surely if you're approaching a topic like that with a monster post, you should be laying it out like an essay, with an introduction. Would've solved the problem, anyway.

Intro's a good idea.

Bah, some people beat me to the point about an introduction.

My other points where that most people aren't really here to have an academic debate. Just a quick bit of banter over a subject. There are a few who will reply to long posts, but it needs to interest them.

Long posts normally mean waffle or covering too many points in one go. The average person can only hold 6-7 'bits' of infomation in there mind at one time. So cover too much material in a disscussion based forum and people just forget what you first mentioned or they forget the whole thing and move on.

I have only read parts of a post and responded to only that part because I've read either side of the point and it's bored me.

Apparently overly long sentences are a problem too.