Will you admit you never read other posts?

Jaxjacky

Yes Daddima I do read it all, which is how I notice some are from years ago and long resolved.

I don't always notice that, as I read the posts, not the times or dates. I do cotton on sometimes when I see the name of someone who hasn't posted for years, and I check the dates, but not always.

Visgir1

Long posts are a turn off for me, I start to read and think can't be bothered.
On established long threads I read the first page... If it's gone on for several pages, I then read the last page and often the page before as the orginal post has normally drifted off, at a tangent.

I think that's fine, if you (generic) are just reading. I don't read every thread - I don't open some and skim others - but if I am going to comment I think it's just manners to read it all, so I am engaging with the thread, rather than just broadcasting my own opinion and not listening to others'. Maybe it's different on 'chat' threads where everyone is saying 'good morning', but even then, what's the point in doing that if nobody's reading?

Long posts are a turn off for me, I start to read and think can't be bothered.
On established long threads I read the first page... If it's gone on for several pages, I then read the last page and often the page before as the orginal post has normally drifted off, at a tangent.

Cabbie21

One other online forum I belong to has an archive of old threads. Not sure where the cut off is, but it saves posters from adding to threads where the OP has told us the problem is resolved, and it stops old threads being revived by spammers.

They have an archive of old threads on MN. One very useful feature they have is the see all on the op.
That allows you to read how far the thread has gone.
But as we know we are the poor relation so it’s never going to happen.

If someone takes time to write a reply that gets no responses and on the next page someone else says the same thing and people do engage with the post then of course the first poster is going to feel overlooked. It can lead to accusations that GN is cliquey, whether it is intentional or not.

Sometimes you just wonder why you wasted your time and energy , really.

Yes Daddima I do read it all, which is how I notice some are from years ago and long resolved.

I have to fess up to not reading some very long posts but I do skim them. If there are a lot of pages I sometimes just read a couple at the end, life being busy and short and all that.

I can see both sides here. Take the Christmas thread. The OP asked how many Christmas cards do you send? Admittedly the meanderings became quite interesting and I was involved myself but surely it would be legitimate to answer the original question without reading through all the other posts.

Greenfinch

But surely responding to the OP is what is required rather than all the meandering.

I guess. The meandering is often more interesting though.

I supposed it depends on whether you see posting as uestion and answer or a social interaction.

Greenfinch

But surely responding to the OP is what is required rather than all the meandering.

Not if the question has been answered over and over.

Someone posts asking what is the capital of France. Lots of reply say that it is Paris, then the conversation turns to holidays, or romantic proposals or films about Paris people have enjoyed. We don't need 1000 posts all saying 'Paris is the capital of France' and the question has been answered for the OP.

If someone writes a thoughtful post about their time in France with her late husband and subsequent posters ignore it and just say 'Paris', it is going to sting, isn't it?

Aely

Well, I have just read through all the posts on here. An interesting discussion.

I find that some posts to which I want to contribute need a bit of careful thinking as to the manner/phrasing of my reply. It can happen that by the time I am happy with what I have written and have pressed send, somebody else has just said it already and then I do feel a bit embarassed.

That happens to me all the time, Aely . It can take ages to write a post, and others get in first, which is fine. It's usually obvious that that has happened, but if I'm in doubt as to whether the other poster will realise I just post to say we cross-posted and I wasn't ignoring them.

But surely responding to the OP is what is required rather than all the meandering.

When lengthy threads have wandered off topic then I think it’s ok to just read the latest couple of pages and comment on them.

It n fact it’s sometimes quite disconcerting to have a post referring to the original post in the middle of a different discussion. You know then that the poster has only read the OP and probably nothing that followed.

Now, to me what I’m doing is having a conversation while I drink my coffee, but I’m aware that others would say I was posting too much🤔

Well, I have just read through all the posts on here. An interesting discussion.

I find that some posts to which I want to contribute need a bit of careful thinking as to the manner/phrasing of my reply. It can happen that by the time I am happy with what I have written and have pressed send, somebody else has just said it already and then I do feel a bit embarassed.

I tend not to respond to very lengthy threads as I don’t have time to read all the posts which I believe you should do to enter any meaningful conversation.

I wouldn't comment on a thread without bothering to read the previous posts. I see not doing so as barging into a conversation expecting to be listened to without knowing what had been said, which would be considered very rude, particularly if the 'contribution' is just repeating what has already been said. On other forums I use just don't tolerate that, and I was quite shocked to see it defended on GN.

We often see posts saying that people feel ignored on here, and that is largely why, IMO. If someone takes time to write a reply that gets no responses and on the next page someone else says the same thing and people do engage with the post then of course the first poster is going to feel overlooked. It can lead to accusations that GN is cliquey, whether it is intentional or not.

Yes that is a good point.
If I started a thread saying women belong in the kitchen and everyone (quite rightly) disagreed with me I dont know that I should be able to delete the thread because everyone disagreed with me. My guess is it is more nuanced than that, but even so.

Good last point Lathyrus.

I think posts do end after 1000 posts but personally I like the ones that meander about and go off topic and then return with people relying to each other.

1000 allows it to do that.

I’m not sure about a facility to allow the OP to end the post. I was a bit irritated a while ago when a post had started to diverge into a really interesting discussion about the the initial topic. It had gone more general and the OP got HQ to delete the whole thing because she said it upset her.

I thought there was a real question there about who owns a post once other people have made a contribution to it. It seemed quite rude to jst wipe everyone else away because it didn’t suit the OP.

Hmmm.........so, only proffessional journalist standards are allowed?

Sadgrandma

I think it would also be helpful if there was a facility to allow the original poster to end the post once they have had all the answers to their question/problem that they want so that no more posts can be made.

Another good idea😃

I do wish posters would stop being so easily offended. Another poster’s ideas and opinions are just that, theirs, and anyone who chooses to be offended must stay that way.Maybe their opinions offend others? It’s a forum.

Greenfinch

Some threads go on for so long that all aspects have been covered relatively early and all the rest is repetition. Would there be an argument for closing down threads when they have reached a certain length?

Yes there would and it’s a good idea👍🏻

Babs03

I think is wise when an OP has on all innocence started a thread on a topic which ruffles many members feathers, causing rather caustic replies, it would be good for members to realise that enough negative replies have been made so there is no need to pile on.
Am thinking of one just now about sending Christmas cards.

That’s the second time this morning that my comments (and those of others) have been criticised for negativity. It is not a ‘pile on’ just expressing my view. Or am I not allowed to do that?
However, I apologise if I offended you.

Correction - in all innocence