|
21 Nov 07 - 08:32 AM (#2199139) Subject: BS: Long Posts in Newspaper Threads From: JohnInKansas On 12 Apr 04 - 03:47 PM a thread was begun to allow "miscellaneous items" that don't fit into existing threads and don't merit starting a whole new thread. The beginning of all this was at: BS: I Read it in the Newspaper That thread began to be a bit unwieldy, and was closed ca. 27 Jul 07 - 08:21 AM "due to a heavy barrage of SPAM," and was continued in BS: News of Note (was 'I Read it . . .') . (Although I was privileged to make the last post in the original thread, I don't believe that my undeserved(?) reputation as a "thread killer" was responsible for its termination; but won't argue the point.) A difficulty observed both there and in this thread is that quite a few posts have justifiably attempted to provide "all that's necessary" to minimize the need for discussion, and in some cases rather long articles have been posted where it's likely that links to original sources will not be long lasting ones. The result of the tendency toward inclusion of some longer "cut and paste" articles, is that the 50-post "break" in threads, which normally gives about 20 – 25 "screens" (in my browser), for some 50-post segments of these threads the segments are much longer – commonly over 50 screens and with a few pushing 75 – up to 3x normal. (Note that unlike the "furshluginer" and "poterzebie," a "screen" is not a standard measure with a defined value, and the size of a "one screen" unit may vary depending on browser settings and the "window size" in use at the time. A thread length in "screens" is just the number of "Page Dn" clicks to get from one end to the other, and will likely be different for each observer.) The purpose of the 50-post break was to speed up opening of threads to make individual downloads "digestible" and readable for those with slow connections and/or small viewing areas. The occasional long posts in these threads have somewhat "bent the notion." A suggestion, for those willing to participate, would be that any post over "average" length should be followed by a blank "spacer" post (or two for very long posts?), to push the count up more quickly to the next break point. Unlike the MOAB thread, where the apparent puerile goal is just to accumulate a large number of posts, I see no reason why insertion of a few "spacer" posts would be detrimental to the purposes of the news thread, and keeping the "character count" for long segments closer to "average" here might help with readability. This should NOT BE interpreted as a permission to insert longer cut-n-paste garbage, and is intended only to help improve readability in the select few threads where slightly longer than usual posts are sometimes consistent with the purposes of the thread. Other than the possible antisocial use of spacers to jump to the mythic "n hundredth post" which might be expected (and should be appropriately denigrated), I see no problems with artificially truncating excessively "long fifties" by a few dummy insertions; but discussion is welcome – which is the reason for making this a separate thread. John |
|
21 Nov 07 - 09:23 AM (#2199169) Subject: RE: BS: Long Posts in Newspaper Threads From: McGrath of Harlow Most times articles will be available in their original place for long enough for the purposes of this kind of discussion. And often they they will be archived. Including a quote from the article in question with a link both provides a taster of what it's all about and provides a handle for tracing the article itself if it's moved, using a search engine. There will be occasions where a longish cut and paste might be appropriate, but not that many. It shouldn't often happen that a bunch of them will turn up in close succession. An alternative way of pushing the count up where a long cut and paste is felt to be necessary would be to break this up into a couple of posts, and publish them one after the other - part 1, part 2... |
|
21 Nov 07 - 09:46 AM (#2199180) Subject: RE: BS: Long Posts in Newspaper Threads From: Amos Unlike the MOAB thread, where the apparent puerile goal is just to accumulate a large number of posts... John, John, you are seeing through a glass darkly, or staring through the dark glassily, take your pick. The spirit of the MOAB is not about numbers. It is about nurturing and elevating and multiplying the BS in the world. Surely even you, level-headed, fact-oriented, and BS-free, can see that. A |
|
21 Nov 07 - 09:50 AM (#2199183) Subject: RE: BS: Long Posts in Newspaper Threads From: JohnInKansas It shouldn't often happen that a bunch of them will turn up in close succession. While long ones are not in close succession, the "last fifty" of the current thread is has enough "longish" posts to be at about "75 screens," (with about 48 posts); and it stalls/hesitates during download with my connection, with "waiting for mudcat" messages. Numerous previous segments are almost as long, so in that particular thread, where there is some justification for the longer posts, it has happened fairly often. Most of the longest posts are for material where there isn't an available/linkable source, so the thread purpose does imply justification for most of them - to some extent. Intent is to recognize the "special need" in the one pair of threads, and not to solicit generalities about general use at the 'cat. Breaking a long post into multiple "normal length" ones is another option, but sometimes there isn't a good place to make the break - and that might require "extra thought processing." John |
|
21 Nov 07 - 09:52 AM (#2199184) Subject: RE: BS: Long Posts in Newspaper Threads From: JohnInKansas Amos - Isn't it immoral to start a thread without at least a "tweak" to spark interest? John |
|
21 Nov 07 - 09:56 AM (#2199189) Subject: RE: BS: Long Posts in Newspaper Threads From: Amos Aha. :D Thanks, John. You have restored my faith in humankind. A |
|
21 Nov 07 - 10:46 AM (#2199225) Subject: RE: BS: Long Posts in Newspaper Threads From: katlaughing Keep the clones informed if that is what you decide to do, please, as we are *programmed* to delete empty posts.:-) |
|
21 Nov 07 - 11:00 AM (#2199232) Subject: RE: BS: Long Posts in Newspaper Threads From: Stilly River Sage I have DSL so the length of the posts hasn't been a problem here, and I forget about how long these used to take to load. I appreciate that the clones haven't lopped off those submissions if they're longer than a screen at times. I do try to post a link to somewhere that might be durable, but too often now in my local papers after a week or two the article slip into a "read for a fee" setting. That would confound the point of the thread for most people, and sometimes going back to these old articles is very interesting. These newspaper threads are used by a relatively small number of people, and they're mostly under the heading of "interesting or odd ball topical" stories. Hot button issues usually end up in their own threads, but I don't think most of these articles should spawn their own, that's why I started it. I'm willing to modify the way I post, and I'm sure Amos and John, and a couple of others who regularly read there, could do the same. How about, if once we post one, if someone else doesn't come up with a regular remark, we go back and push it to the top with a short remark of our own? You know, like in some government documents, "This page left intentionally blank." (Of course, once they write that, it isn't blank any more, so those pages are oxymoronic in nature.) SRS |
|
21 Nov 07 - 11:29 AM (#2199255) Subject: RE: BS: Long Posts in Newspaper Threads From: JohnInKansas Stilly - The "blank" in "This page intentionally left blank" means "not having any content" rather than not having any marks on it. In government documents, it often means "this page is just like all the rest of them," one supposes. A difficulty with just doing "refresh" posts is that when the thread goes back to the top, people may think there's something worth looking at and may lose interest if they find just "refresh" too often; but as noted there are (apparently) relatively few looking at the thread in question. Those few, being among the more gifted of the crew, probably can handle it. (note to Amos: another tweak(?)) John |
|
21 Nov 07 - 02:09 PM (#2199356) Subject: RE: BS: Long Posts in Newspaper Threads From: Amos The subtlety of definition you use as regards TPILB, John, does nothing to gainsay the paradox of the proposition that one must put content on the page in order to indicate it has none. It would be like passing someone a note which read, "This is not a message". You would need a book the size of Godel, Escher and Bach to get to the bottom of the resonating self-referential contradictions; and keeping the universe in full creation in the interim could get to be a real strain. A |
|
21 Nov 07 - 03:15 PM (#2199400) Subject: RE: BS: Long Posts in Newspaper Threads From: Joe Offer The following is my personal opinion, which some people think I am not allowed to have: Threads like "I Read It in the Newspaper" and MOAB really piss me off. I mean, why would anybody post all that prattle here at Mudcat? Heck, they're worse than birthday threads, and it's well-known what I think of birthday threads. I've begged, I've pleaded, I've cajoled, I've even groveled - but it doesn't do any good. So, I've learned that the best thing I can do is not to look at such threads. It takes a lot of discipline - kind of like training yourself not to look at vomit when you clean it up. But hey, I've learned how to do it, and I feel much better about it now. But now here's a thread that suggests we add empty posts to the newspaper threads? Well, let me opine that maybe instead of inserting a blank message after a lenthy copy-paste, it might be a brilliant idea to insert a brief message expressing one's own opinion and summary of the aforesaid lengthy copy-paste. ...just an opinion, mind you. -Joe- |
|
21 Nov 07 - 04:40 PM (#2199464) Subject: RE: BS: Long Posts in Newspaper Threads From: Amos Joe: You should take into account that Khandu's brilliance in starting the MOAB was to save the 'Cat from hundreds, nay , thousands of threads of comparable quality. Think if all those hairy impulse to banter had been invested in separate threads! The MOAB may seem like vomit from the outside, sir, but to those who know it it is a heartfelt conversation fully as important as "where tits go in the winter", or "who likes which soap opera in the UK in winter", or any of a thousand other meretricious topics. Just another opinion. A |
|
21 Nov 07 - 05:11 PM (#2199480) Subject: RE: BS: Long Posts in Newspaper Threads From: Stilly River Sage I suppose you could first post one that says "this isn't a real article, the next one will be," and send that along, then open the thread again and post your actual article. Or I could go back to my old routine of running part of the article and searching for a durable link. There are some newspapers, like the San Francisco Chronicle, that seem to leave article accessible for years. I'm sorry Joe doesn't appreciate of this form of discussion. Here I thought I was doing him a favor by continuing one thread instead of starting all sorts of new little threads. Is Joe a newspaper reader, does he understand this impulse? When I read the paper I always seem to find some interesting article to share with whoever else is in the room, as do the rest of our regular contributors. SRS |
|
21 Nov 07 - 05:19 PM (#2199492) Subject: RE: BS: Long Posts in Newspaper Threads From: Joe Offer Oh, I read newspapers with great devotion - on paper. Heck, what else can a fellah do in the bathroom? But when I read an article that interests me, I talk about it - I don't just cut out the article and stick it my wife's face. What I'm suggesting is that the wholesale no-comment posting of links and articles is a bit ludicrous. Why not discuss them? This IS a discussion forum, isn't it? -Joe- |
|
21 Nov 07 - 06:37 PM (#2199544) Subject: RE: BS: Long Posts in Newspaper Threads From: katlaughing Joe, I think of that thread more like a bulletin board (the old-fashioned kind on a wall) where one may post cartoons, editorials, short snippets of news, etc. to share with others. I like comments, too, but it seems a good general spot for little bits here and there. If they aren't so little (I haven't been in, recently) then maybe I am wrong in thinking of it that way OR it's a HUGE board!:-) |
|
21 Nov 07 - 06:42 PM (#2199549) Subject: RE: BS: Long Posts in Newspaper Threads From: wysiwyg For most of those newspaper stories, there is nothing to discuss-- unless "Hahahahah I found that funny too" is deathless prose. It's a place to skim stories from the hilarious to the sublime, and back to hilarious, gathered from a welath of sources we'd otherwise miss. It's almost live folklore! It's especially a good thread to curl up with when there's nothing else worthy of attention going on (IRL or at Mudcat), and a bit of cheer or inspiration is welcome. ~S~ |
|
21 Nov 07 - 07:23 PM (#2199577) Subject: RE: BS: Long Posts in Newspaper Threads From: Joe Offer OK, Ok.... Now that I have DSL, I can actually open the thread without trepidation. So, I did it, finally, and I have to say there's some good stuff in there. But don't quote me on that. I'd much prefer to be viewed as somwhat of a curmudgeon. When I grow up, I wanna be Bill D. He does it with such panache... -Joe Offer- |
|
21 Nov 07 - 07:47 PM (#2199595) Subject: RE: BS: Long Posts in Newspaper Threads From: McGrath of Harlow Breaking a long post into multiple "normal length" ones is another option, but sometimes there isn't a good place to make the break - and that might require "extra thought processing." End of any paragraph once the cut and paste is getting a bit long? Not much thought prcessing required in doing that. |
|
21 Nov 07 - 08:03 PM (#2199610) Subject: RE: BS: Long Posts in Newspaper Threads From: JohnInKansas Joe O - Don't worry about your reputation. It's likely immutable by now. McG - It's not the amount of thought processing required; but the amount relative to the capabilities and interests of the one posting. Some people don't even run spellcheck as part of their prcessing. John |