Chiff and Fipple Forums

A wee plea for concision/readability here...

When replying to someone's post, you rarely need to quote the whole thing. Sometimes, if it's short and you're the next poster, you don't need to quote it at all. (Caveats: I might go back to edit in a quote for clarity if someone else gets in while I'm typing* and/or my reply appears at the top of a new page.) If replying to multiple points from the same post, it can still be tidier and clearer to quote them briefly one by one, with the only real downside being the slight extra effort required to separate the quotes while replying.

*Which happens frequently because I sit agonising over words for ages!

Swathes of unnecessary 'quote' are as big an obstacle to fluent reading as oversized images.

That's all.

Peter Duggan wrote:A wee plea for concision/readability here...

When replying to someone's post, you rarely need to quote the whole thing. Sometimes, if it's short and you're the next poster, you don't need to quote it at all. (Caveats: I might go back to edit in a quote for clarity if someone else gets in while I'm typing* and/or my reply appears at the top of a new page.) If replying to multiple points from the same post, it can still be tidier and clearer to quote them briefly one by one, with the only real downside being the slight extra effort required to separate the quotes while replying.

*Which happens frequently because I sit agonising over words for ages!

Swathes of unnecessary 'quote' are as big an obstacle to fluent reading as oversized images.

That's all.

Yes.

Peter Duggan wrote:Swathes of unnecessary 'quote' are as big an obstacle to fluent reading as oversized images.

Agreed wholeheartedly on both points. If quoting a previous post, I endeavor to quote only the portion I wish to highlight or extrapolate on. I alao resized some photos I took with the intent of posting here before actually posting them.

benhall.1 wrote:Yes.

Predictable (from someone... not necessarily you)!

Peter Duggan wrote:If replying to multiple points from the same post, it can still be tidier and clearer to quote them briefly one by one, with the only real downside being the slight extra effort required to separate the quotes while replying.

That's my philosophy.

As you say, Peter, some might be put off by the extra work, but if the point I'm making matters that much to me, then when quoting, I think I should show exactly what point I'm replying to. It leaves no doubt that I'm paying attention and not just rambling. I'm not sure I'd wholly agree with the word "tidier" when I find myself having to take apart an entire blackened page, assertion after assertion, and keep it all in one post, but it is clearer, yes, and importantly to me, it's on point.

But if only postcraft were always easy. We know that some have difficulty sorting out the quote process. Especially in paring down multiple quotes, I've found myself tripped up plenty of times. It's always fixable, but it can be frustrating.

Nanohedron wrote:I'm not sure I'd wholly agree with the word "tidier"

So ignore that bit, which was probably just my way of stressing the 'clearer'! Though perhaps still also 'tidier' in cutting down superfluous word count?

We know that some have difficulty sorting out the quote process. Especially in paring down multiple quotes, I've found myself tripped up plenty of times. It's always fixable, but it can be frustrating.

Yes, it can be frustrating. But previewing before submitting helps to catch the gremlins, and I always do* (frequently multiple times).

*Preview, not necessarily catch everything... though you won't spot many unclosed or wrongly-nested quotes escaping me!

Peter Duggan wrote:Though perhaps still also 'tidier' in cutting down superfluous word count?

Sure, I'd go with that.

[Small revival - Mod]

Nanohedron wrote:

Peter Duggan wrote:'tidier'?

Sure

Agreed

walrii wrote:

Nanohedron wrote:

Peter Duggan wrote:'tidier'?

Sure

Agreed

Disciplinarian.

(you will have to imagine that as a 4th nested quote)

I'm with you, in the main, I too, hate to see pages of whole post quotes.

I also dislike it when someone quotes something from a previous post, which had a video, which is irrelevant to the subject in hand, being included, (doesn't happen much on here, but I'm on quite a few forums).

Also wish more people would use the 'smilies', as it makes posts clearer, where there may be misinterpretation owing to global location.

david_h wrote:

I was playing to walrii's reductionism. Even a Spartan might raise an eyebrow.

fatmac wrote:Also wish more people would use the 'smilies', as it makes posts clearer, where there may be misinterpretation owing to global location.

THANK you. And it's a favorite topic of mine. I use them, but not because I think they're pretty or all the rage; I use them in the event that there might be reader misunderstanding without them, or to emphasize my emotional state. Sometimes I use them as david_h did above, leaving words out of it. There's nothing wrong with that. Detractors say that good writing shouldn't need smileys, and I agree in principle, but it also ignores the fact that through no fault of their own, some will never have the knack for good writing, so to blow that horn on a message board is sheer snobbery, pure and simple. Message boards are a different kettle of fish, because you're often responding directly to others of all types, as if in face-to-face conversation. Sometimes even the best writing cannot be equal to the need for a conversational degree of nuance on a Board like this, and wouldn't a good writer recognize instances when there might be such difficulty? After all, snideness might be mistaken for sincerity, or vice versa. Either way, in that case communication has failed. A good writer wouldn't leave the poor reader to guess, and too bad for them if they don't get your drift. In that case, why are you even posting? Simply to admire yourself? No matter how rich your vocabulary, if people can't understand your supposed subtleties, that can never be good writing whether you use smileys or not. I could manage without smileys, sure - we all could - but that's no reason for saying I ought to. Used well, they can help save a lot of time and misunderstanding. If someone looks down on me for it ... oh, well. Maybe they should try someone who cares, instead.

And see? That didn't require any smileys at all. (oops...)

But there's also the opposite end of the spectrum, where some people do overuse and group them in a parade to the point that they lose their meaning altogether. And some don't even seem to have a clue that the smiley they chose is supposed to have an actual, specific meaning; it's just there, and for who knows what purpose. Don't care for those cases at all, myself. And sometimes there's just no call for it whatsoever. There was one case where I was having a group texting session, and upon learning that one of us was going skiing, another posted a downhill skiing emoji in response. I don't want to be harsh, but... c'mon. That was just plain vapid, never mind the waste of bandwidth.

I've cut down a couple of quotes.....but with an ipad, squidgy eyesight when I forget where my specs are, and an arthritic finger jabbing at 'select' in the menu, it doesn't always go too well

Nah, I hate accessing C&F by anything other than a PC. I've used my smartphone for it when my laptop's belly-up or I've lost my connection, but them's dire circumstances.

.