Virtual events

MawtheMerrier

StarDreamer

It is not a matter of competitive posting, it is a matter of the thread being noticed as having received another post.

But if that “other post” is by OP, just to bump the post up the Active list, surely that is cheating.
Like buying multiple copies of one’s own record to boost sales so as to move up the charts . That smacks of desperation.

Precisely. All in order to get a mention on GN Daily. ?

And BUMP!!!!!!!!!!

Does it make any difference to anyone else, how stardreamer chooses to post?
It isn't up to anybody to tell him what he may or may not do!

The site is for everyone.

BUMP!
BUMP!!!!
BUMP!!!!!

StarDreamer

It is not a matter of competitive posting, it is a matter of the thread being noticed as having received another post.

But if that “other post” is by OP, just to bump the post up the Active list, surely that is cheating.
Like buying multiple copies of one’s own record to boost sales so as to move up the charts . That smacks of desperation.

You do it your way, I'll do it my way
That’s rather brusque, not to say dismissive SD.

Germanshepherdsmum

You’re not writing a textbook requiring details of sources, SD. The links are invariably distracting and frequently attaching a picture as Maw has demonstrated is more than sufficient. Who wants to be directed to a 24 minute talk? If they’re sufficiently interested someone can find further information for themselves.

And why the obsession with getting to the top of the Active list? Readers do scroll through it you know.

You do it your way, I'll do it my way.

ixion

I'm sorry, but I just don't get it?‍♀️
It's not even in the Top Ten...

The active list is not about popularity, the active list (supposedly) lists posts from most recent then back through time.

It is not a matter of competitive posting, it is a matter of the thread being noticed as having received another post.

MawtheMerrier

And in any case - GN is not about competitive posting - it really doesn’t matter or indeed make any difference- whether a thread is top of Active conversations or not, does it?

It does, because if I post a reply and it does not go to the top of the active list but just gets a change of posting time and poster username way down the active list, then the reply may not be noticed by people who are following several threads.

LINK > Hmm!

What has Gransnet got in common with the National Grid?

(Newly devised riddle, the answer when spoken better than when written)

I'm sorry, but I just don't get it?‍♀️
It's not even in the Top Ten...

You’re not writing a textbook requiring details of sources, SD. The links are invariably distracting and frequently attaching a picture as Maw has demonstrated is more than sufficient. Who wants to be directed to a 24 minute talk? If they’re sufficiently interested someone can find further information for themselves.

And why the obsession with getting to the top of the Active list? Readers do scroll through it you know.

And in any case - GN is not about competitive posting - it really doesn’t matter or indeed make any difference- whether a thread is top of Active conversations or not, does it?

Sometimes you just need enough interest in a thread.

FannyCornforth

StarDreamer

A bump as the thread did not go to the top of the active list.

It happens all of the time SD
Don’t take it personally.
And there’s no need to start a thread about it in Site Stuff!

Hello Fanny

Sometimes one needs to bump twice to get a post to the top of the active list.

Mollygo

SD
So if I write that there is another thread, then I should provide a link to that thread.
Who says you should do that? I haven’t noticed any other posters being told they should.

I wrote as follows

It is fundamental when producing output to provide references to external information to which one refers.

So if I write that there is another thread, then I should provide a link to that thread.

I was not told that in Gransnet, I was told about that being the way to proceed when one produces output over fifty years ago. So I just applied the usual way I do things to what I have posted in Gransnet.

For the avoidance of doubt I am not saying what anyone else should do, I have answered your question as to why I do it.

SD
So if I write that there is another thread, then I should provide a link to that thread.
Who says you should do that? I haven’t noticed any other posters being told they should.

StarDreamer

A bump as the thread did not go to the top of the active list.

It happens all of the time SD
Don’t take it personally.
And there’s no need to start a thread about it in Site Stuff!

A bump as the thread did not go to the top of the active list.

LINK > Paolo Uccello, 'The Battle of San Romano' | Talks for all | National Gallery (24 minutes 36 seconds)

It is fundamental when producing output to provide references to external information to which one refers.
So if I write that there is another thread, then I should provide a link to that thread.

If I write that there is a painting by Paolo Uccello featuring an illustration of a man upon a white horse with a red and yellow hat and that the painting is an early attempt at including perspective to try to produce an impression of a three-dimensional display, then it is fundamental that I provide a reference to the painting

Or what might be equally helpful could be to refer to the mid 15th century painting by Uccello of a man on a white horse at the battle of San Romano which is in the National Gallery and show a pic of it, saying why you think it relevant in the context.
E.g. that Uccello was one of the first artists to introduce linear perspective to painting.

But to post so many links within 40 minutes to a thread currently high up in the ‘Active discussions’ list at the time (“clear as the hand in front of one’s face”!) was maybe superfluous?

Mollygo

SD, what’s your obsession with links?
We can find the new thread without being organised into doing so.
Do step aboard, but challenge yourself to relax and just follow the advice in the Côte D’Azur OP.

It is fundamental when producing output to provide references to external information to which one refers.

So if I write that there is another thread, then I should provide a link to that thread.

If I write that there is a painting by Paolo Uccello featuring an illustration of a man upon a white horse with a red and yellow hat and that the painting is an early attempt at including perspective to try to produce an impression of a three-dimensional display, then it is fundamental that I provide a reference to the painting.

Certainly I expect that you could find the painting on the web by using the information about the painting that I have provided, but that is not the point. If I mention the painting I should provide a link.

I have not done so here so as to help explain why including a link is important.

Though I expect that I will probably feel a need to include a link later, for completeness.

Or, you could start an entirely new thread, stardreamer.
Entirely up to you.
Do whatever you like.

SD, what’s your obsession with links?
We can find the new thread without being organised into doing so.
Do step aboard, but challenge yourself to relax and just follow the advice in the Côte D’Azur OP.