Lazy Arses, Reading Threads, and Posting

[manic_depressive13]

Once I would have agreed with you, but really, this is the internet. Consider how inconsequential everything you say in the real world is, then multiply that by... lots. If you sit there agonising over everything you post, that's your loss. No one knows you exist. This forum rewards quantity, not quality. Ideally it shouldn't be like this, but unfortunately it is, and you're definitely not going to change the collective mindset, regardless of how well thought out your post is.

(This post was edited several times to reach a sufficient tone of hostility.)

 

[Zykon TheLich]

I'm a bit of a Hemingway, so I feel the need to go into great detail when creating a post.

Really...so it wasn't you that posted those now deleted ass vs tits threads yesterday?

OT, no, short and to the point, that's the way I like it. Apart from snark, adding a bit of snark is very important.

 

[smithy_2045]

Why post a long post when you can say what you want to in a single line?

 

[Tanner The Monotone]

When a subject can be presented in a simple matter, then I don't tend to write a whole lot for it. I've put in a lot of info in a few of my threads and it got little attention, but I write a short and simple on, I tend to get a lot more views and comments.

 

[Fraught]

I'm a bit of a Hemingway, so I feel the need to go into great detail when creating a post. This results in the "wall of text" phenomenon as is often quoted on forums such as this. I believe my posts are interesting and contain good information, but it seems that the length immediately makes people avoid reading them.

Well, either herein lies your problem, and you can easily remedy it by employing paragraphs in your writing, or you just don't know what a "wall of text" is.

I've noticed that the usage of the phrase "wall of text" is way too prevalent here (and everywhere on the internet), usually used by people with a less-than-average intelligence and writing grammar, trying to justify their own inability to write as long posts while cramming fresh, concise and interesting information throughout.
Of course, I'm not implying that you are one of those people. Actually, heh, look, here I went off on one of those "tangents" you mentioned in your post.

(P.S. I quickly blotted up a crude visual accompaniment which should explain my point easily even to a mollusk, which can be found here. [http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/9099/wallid.jpg])

Also, yeah, I'm a perpetrator of this "short post" phenomen, but someone in this thread who mentioned famous quotes, is right. People who like to think they're smart often glance over a new piece of their mind they've committed to paper and think that even though they've written a long post, it contains so much to swallow, so much content and it all is edifying and never repeats itself etc.

Truth is, everything can be said with a much shorter train of letters (even with a single sentence) than someone else has before, either by striking off superfluous words and/or sentences, or by saying something that has multiple meanings, implications and more pizzazz and gets a point across with but a word, like, for example, by association to some other widely-known phenomen or something said in the thread before (while not just quoting and repeating, but adding a lot).

 

[tahrey]

I've already typed too much today, so I wish there was a nice big "I like this" button on the OP that I could click on...

Terseness is a wonderful thing and something I wish I possessed more, but I don't have the necessary mental skills it would seem. That or sufficient clarity of thought ... or is it just simplicity? I'm thinking about a lot of different things at once, in some depth. Apparently it's some kind of dyslexic spectrum side effect (ironically, you can be very effective at assessing something, but be horrendous at trying to express the outcome).

It's one thing to be to the point, but sometimes you do need to look at or present something with more detail, and it's infuriating to be continually labelled as a timecuber by people who don't even bother to skim what you've written.

Dragons' Den Idea: A subscription based internet service, employing out-of-work journos / newspaper editors / english majors / etc, to which people like myself could submit overlong screeds and have them returned, with the core points intact, but now fitting within whatever shorter space was requested. I'd f*ckin' pay for that.

 

[bojac6]

I'm a bit of a Hemingway [snip]

That's the exact opposite of the point you go on to make. Hemingway's writing style is characterized by the economy of words, namely he was short and to the point. I think a better choice would be one of the famous Russian writers, who as a whole are characterized by building to a point, being elaborate, and writing really long. Hemingway would have written your entire post as something more like this:

"Long posts are disliked. This is a shame. Conversation requires thought, otherwise we just babble."

OT: I really don't know if it's possible to respond to your post without falling in one of your three groups that you dislike. I'm already guilty of point three (picking something marginally related, in this case your use of Hemingway, and making it the focus of my post). If I agree with you, I'm guilty of 2 and if I disagree, I'm guilty of 1. However, I do agree. I like long posts, I almost always post long posts, and when you see a thread dissolve into flamewars or just many short posts, you know it's coming to an end. Frankly, who cares? If someone is too lazy to read your whole post, they obviously aren't interested enough in the topic to be party to a reasonable, interesting discussion; therefore ignore them.

 

[M Silverthorn]

I've got to side with Bojac6 on this one. Hemmingway never struck me as a wordy fellow, so already I'd question what you're trying to say. There's a lot of hidden bile here, I think. Folks creating a "bash" post; most people are idiots; things that just piss other people off and create flame wars.

Long posts make my face hurt. Already I'm in danger of breaking that little rule. I always went about Forum-browsing for quick conversation that didn't require an intense amount of thought. I don't need or want to have to absorb an hour's worth of text to try and dig out the single truth inside of it.

I agree (partially) with your 3-option ruling, though I'd strip out some of the hatred. Not everyone is out to murder you or your thoughts.
I disagree with the need for longer posts - verbosity just leads to confusion, methinks. =/

 

[p3t3r]

most of the time i am to lazy to post

 

[lizabeth19]

If there is one thing I hate it is seeing the same exact comment 27 different times in one thread. Do people even read things besides the first post? If 12 other people have already presented my particular argument or belief there isn't really any reason for me to say anything. If I don't actually add anything I normally don't say anything. Then again I usually read damn near every page in each topic I look at.

Even the threads that are close to 10 pages long? Damm...

 

[lizabeth19]

I'm a bit of a Hemingway, so I feel the need to go into great detail when creating a post. This results in the "wall of text" phenomenon as is often quoted on forums such as this. I believe my posts are interesting and contain good information, but it seems that the length immediately makes people avoid reading them.

I argue for longer posts because it's impossible to make an argument without sufficient length. Most posts are one dimensional without any supporting information. It seems that people are persuaded simply by being told what to think. There's no need to "convince" them. Here are three archetypes I've observed in how ass-hats post:

1. Stick to what they previously believed, taking no time to understand your points, and begin creating a "bash" post of your ideas

2. Immediately jump on the bandwagon, reiterating what little was already said, and add no depth of their own. The points made remain completely unfounded, but are now somehow stronger because more people are idiots

3. Post something irrelevant that doesn't argue against or for the points. What's said usually just pisses someone else off. People go off on tangents and the thread dissolves into a "flamewar"

What do you think? Does this pretty much some up how little thinking often goes on before people click "post"? I'm interested to hear if you have other types of stereotypical poster varieties to describe.

Thanks for reading!

(1)Normally I would agree with you. Gernerally I can type out a paragraph in a few minute, exclusing editing. However I recently hurt my hand and it is still too sore to touch-type Therefore I'm typing with just one hand and it has really cut down on the time and desire it takes to post something as long as yours.

(2) What if the post asks for a simple reply, such as "Do you like chocolate or oranges?" Unless you were to extol the virtue of chocolate, it is hard to do more than a few sentances.

 

[Retardinator]

I'm a bit of a Hemingway, so I feel the need to go into great detail when creating a post. This results in the "wall of text" phenomenon as is often quoted on forums such as this. I believe my posts are interesting and contain good information, but it seems that the length immediately makes people avoid reading them.

I argue for longer posts because it's impossible to make an argument without sufficient length. Most posts are one dimensional without any supporting information. It seems that people are persuaded simply by being told what to think. There's no need to "convince" them. Here are three archetypes I've observed in how ass-hats post:

1. Stick to what they previously believed, taking no time to understand your points, and begin creating a "bash" post of your ideas

2. Immediately jump on the bandwagon, reiterating what little was already said, and add no depth of their own. The points made remain completely unfounded, but are now somehow stronger because more people are idiots

3. Post something irrelevant that doesn't argue against or for the points. What's said usually just pisses someone else off. People go off on tangents and the thread dissolves into a "flamewar"

What do you think? Does this pretty much some up how little thinking often goes on before people click "post"? I'm interested to hear if you have other types of stereotypical poster varieties to describe.

Thanks for reading!

What he said.

...someone had to do it!

On a more serious note, I don't think large posts are always necessary. You don't really need to write a wall of text to state something. Another issue is readability. Having shorter posts improves readability, while longer ones just tend to turn the majority of users away from what you wrote. This is, of course, counting that you are actually trying to state something, rather than just insult someone or start a flame war.

EDIT: Somewhat related. I toyed with this as part of some kind of assignment in my English class.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9703b.html

 

[GBlair88]

-Snip-

Wall of text to me does not mean long post. It means Lots of text with no spacing of any kind making it ugly and a chore to read.

Couldnt be arsed to read the rest lol.

My thoughts exactly and here's an example: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.258248-mythological-creatures

On the other hand a long post doesn't automatically equal a good post. The poster could end up contradicting themselves or create a large amount of text that doesn't explain their viewpoint thoroughly.

 

[Jordi]

If there is one thing I hate it is seeing the same exact comment 27 different times in one thread. Do people even read things besides the first post? If 12 other people have already presented my particular argument or belief there isn't really any reason for me to say anything. If I don't actually add anything I normally don't say anything. Then again I usually read damn near every page in each topic I look at.

I only agree if you only have to read like 3-4 pages. If the thread has gone on for like 7 pages or more then it isn't really reasonable to expect people to read each and every post that has been made so far.

If the thread is 7 pages, and you don't want to read everything, I would personally hope that you refrain from posting. Odds are that what you have to say has already been said, and you would only be contributing to the further "pollution" of the thread. If everyone would abide by this rule (which is of course never going to happen), the thread probably would not have been that long to begin with.

It usually annoys me when it seems that posters have not read the previous posts (e.g. everybody in this thread, except the first person, that points out what a wall of text really is). But for me the really small posts that do this are not really the problem, because they don't take any time to read. The real problem comes from the (slightly) longer posts that are not really adding anything to the discussion. And I think that is a real problem. Because even though I obviously feel that this not-very-short post is adding something to the discussion, some of you may feel I'm basically just paraphrasing everyone who has agreed with the OP. So sorry, I guess.

Having said that, I think that most posts can be improved by making them shorter (and many by never being posted at all). I wish I had the skill to be more concise.