Lengthy 'cut and paste' - acceptable or not?

POGS I didn't think I was conflating two subjects.
I thought I was commenting on a second subject which had been introduced into this thread.

On Monday Natasha said:

We don't have a set word count

No, but you do have a character limit of 15,000 (I've just tested it with a really long post I posted earlier this month and had to do in two parts.)

I admit that it was posted partly in protest at the excessively long copy and paste posts we'd been enduring having for a couple of months, but it's clear that there is a limit. Perhaps Gnet would think about reducing the limit?

I absolutely agree with Jalima's last post and did suggest that myself when the prolific c & p poster first appeared on the scene.

But we're not at uni now crytaltipps, we're on a chat forum, although I do take the point about long posts which I tended to ignore.

It's a good idea to copy and paste a 'taster' and put in a link so that people can follow up if they wish, but some links are not always accessible to all.

Laura

You had better nip my thread in the bud in that case as you have answered it.

Far North

" I guess the answer is ' If you don't like um , don't read um"

That's right, POGS.
Surely you wouldn't want gnhq to police how many threads there are on similar topics?
--

You are of course right to raise what could be deemed as hypocrisy on my part by some but I genuinely don't mind long cut and pastes if they are informative and relative to a thread. It's a shame they stand the risk of having to be repeated so many times to engage in threads that are discussing the same subject.

Does your conflation of two subjects , threads about a thread and using cut and paste hold similar meanings? Not in my book but each to his own I take your point on the chin.

We were always at uni told any quotation had to be referenced. Never use a quotation of more than 100 words without your own comment/ conclusion etc not sure if that’s still the convention but it sounds a good guideline. It’s easier to scroll through a short link you don’t want to read than a lengthy c n p that you don’t want to read, that’s the point.

Pogs I asked the same question about GN policy on the issue of TAAT. That thread has been deleted with no answer to my question or the question about GNHQ editing (with or without the poster's permission) when we can't do an immediate edit on our own posts.
I expect to be deleted now!

I feel like that as well Oldwoman70, I am on GN for the poster's views not to be force fed information from other sources.

I'm another who doesn't like long cut and paste. I would prefer to read the posters own thoughts about a subject, with possibly a link.

If I am having a conversation with someone they don't suddenly produce a magazine or newspaper, hand it to me and expect me to read an article - isn't cut and paste the internet equivalent of that.

I guess the answer is ' If you don't like um , don't read um"

That's right, POGS.
Surely you wouldn't want gnhq to police how many threads there are on similar topics?

If a thread is making points about a topic, it could be similar to another thread but is not a thread about a thread.

Does this apply to a lengthy extract copied and pasted from (I am assuming) another site?

As an aside instead of worriting about lengths of individual posts GN have you ever considered making a decision about the etiquette / rules of the so called Thread about a Thread position?

Why do we have copious amounts of threads all related to the same topic, are they not Threads about a Thread?

They are more likely to turn the majority of posters off but I guess the answer is ' If you don't like um , don't read um". The same principle that could have quietly applied to taking acception to the way others post I guess.

Of course some posters will post fewer times but give long content and reasoning to their thought and others post so many times if you added their prolific mutterings they probably are more tedious to read than a poster that takes time to give their reason.

What a tricky one to sort out.!

What a crock of!

Isn't it funny when a poster likes another posters use of cut and paste and sees no problem if a lengthy quote follows they have no issue with it. They may have even 'thanked' posters that chime with their view for being so informative!

If a poster takes acception to another poster/posters doing the same there must be decision made to stop it happening.

I know what I call this behaviour.

Thanks Natasha but if a copy and paste is in quotation marks and the source accredited, how long is too long?
You see what I mean, I hope?
Getting a point across ( or several points)could take a long-ish post.
What one poster would call a long post ( cut and paste) and then report it to you, another poster would not think the same.
How many paragraphs is acceptable?

By the OP I mean the OP of the previous threads which DID quote at length from articles, and in which she was told it was not allowed.

Falling out over this is exactly what a real t****l troublemaker would have hoped we would do. Why let ourselves be manipulated into nastiness?

I have only just read all this about long quotes being "banned," and it seems to me more than a coincidence that it has happened at the same time as another hoo-ha about an admin decision (changing a thread title without an explanation, causing confusion about the earlier replies)

Both events appear to have been initiated by either someone with admin rights, or someone who got hold illegally of those rights.

Do we have any evidence other than the quoted message from HQ to the OP that they have banned them? To me it reads as though someone is new to the job and hasn't quite got the rules clear in their head, or learnt how to apply tact. This was at the weekend, when regular moderators are at home with their families, remember.

The last slight possibility in the case of these long quotes which are said to have been banned by HQ in an untypically harsh email is that this particular hoo-ha was caused by someone who would like us to think that HQ are responsible.

HQ have said (more or less) about the title change that they don't know how it happened and are looking into it. Presumably they are looking into this too. Maybe the two are linked?

Too much hot air wasted and boiling off into the atmosphere! Why not send PMs to HQ to ask what is going on? If they get a lot of mail about it, they will act faster to clear it up and to keep us informed.

I think copyright concerns are valid if quotation marks aren’t used and the quote isn’t correctly attributed, merlot.
That was happening in some cases.

Maybe GNHQ are concerned about copyright laws? I seem to remember there was an issue on mumsnet a couple of years ago due to somebody 'quoting' an article that was libellous.

Something like that, anyway.

Posters have been using cut and paste on here for years until now.

Unfortunately she now feels unwelcome on GN and may or may not return.If she doesn’t, I can’t blame her and will miss her informative posts.

Just had another thought - could some of the content of cut and paste be subject to copyright?

Has anyone else noticed that another prolific cut and paster seems to have disappeared too?