Kudos for concise posts April 28, 2003 9:12 AM   Subscribe

Kudos for concise posts [More inside]
posted by jaden to Etiquette/Policy at 9:12 AM (16 comments total)

Kudos for noting the concise posts.
posted by jpburns at 9:13 AM on April 28, 2003


The first seven FPPs for today are short and to the point, making them very easy to read. I like it.
posted by jaden at 9:14 AM on April 28, 2003


Kudos to jpburns for commenting at lightning speed.
posted by jaden at 9:15 AM on April 28, 2003


Kudos taste good.
posted by trharlan at 9:18 AM on April 28, 2003


I was going to make some snarky comment about y2karl not having woken up yet, but then I looked more closely..
posted by PrinceValium at 9:19 AM on April 28, 2003


Kudos to you, duder.

Kudos to you.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:31 AM on April 28, 2003


Don't blame me, I voted for Kudos!
posted by inpHilltr8r at 10:13 AM on April 28, 2003


A question for the people who posted today: Did you make the description short on purpose, or did it just turn out that way?

It seems like an effort was made to keep the descriptions short (two lines), especially Pretty_Generic's.
posted by jaden at 10:31 AM on April 28, 2003


Jaden: I feel shortness is not of itself a virtue. If a post has one or two links, it's easy to present it in a few words. When there are a few of them and the subject demands a little more description and presentation, it inevitably leads to longer posts.

Post length, as in all written expression, should be relative to the subject matter. So should posts be judged, imo.

Fwiw, I enjoy reading and so tend to prefer longer posts. I know today, from the looks of MeTa's front page, is probably the official Get Y2karl Day but I can't help feeling that all that his detractors complain about can be easily solved by advising them to just scroll down. Not too much effort, surely, and requires no special reading skills.

We're all in this together; it takes all sorts; different strokes; the more diversity, the better; bla bla bla.

(Bla bla bla because it's strange so many seem to feel uncomfortable with it.)

Finally, I think a lot (if not most) short posts are not the result of an effort towards concisiveness but of other *cough* more prosaic reasons.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:47 AM on April 28, 2003


The worst posts are very short and unresearched. Then come long posts.

And even better than those are posts made by people who understand what they're discussing and thus don't need to elaborate unnecessarily.

Words waste water.
posted by j.edwards at 10:59 AM on April 28, 2003


Miguel: I agree that shortness by itself is not a virtue.

Like j.edwards, I've observed three different stages when I write:

1. Short because I'm lazy and haven't researched the topic much.
2. Long because I did more research and wrote it all down.
3. Short and concise because I refined the result of #2.

I admit there are times when the subject matter does not permit you to reduce the length, however using [More inside] gets around that issue.

The front page is much easier to read when the posts are short and concise, at least for me.
posted by jaden at 11:15 AM on April 28, 2003


I've been intentionally trying to keep my frontpage posts short and sweet, eschewing much interpretation from me lately. I've taken to heart the posting guideline about how a good post shouldn't be about the person who posts it.

And it's not about lack of research. I figure, you're all smart, and can make your own assessments. And I know you can all do your own Google searches on the subject if the spirit moves you. And since this is a community effort, I hope that when that does happen, and you find something noteworthy to add, you'll post about in a comment.

That is what it's all about, isn't it?
posted by crunchland at 12:46 PM on April 28, 2003


The worst posts are very short and unresearched. Then come long posts.

bah. length is no criteria by which to judge a post. content, man, content. for example, i have found that the worst posts usually contain one or more of the words "hover", "carrot" and "somnambulant", while the best usually include at least two of the following: "meat", "fever" or "tractor". also, the word "unresearched" remains unresearched by the spelling checker.
posted by quonsar at 12:58 PM on April 28, 2003


So size does matter?
posted by dg at 3:37 PM on April 28, 2003


Well, it's really the girth of the post, you see.
posted by cortex at 4:02 PM on April 28, 2003


I've taken to heart the posting guideline about how a good post shouldn't be about the person who posts it.

Apart being another in a long line of personal attacks, albeit by innuendo this time, this sanctimonious sentence refers to a posting guideline that does not exist. The closest equivalent is an admonition not to self-link to one's weblog or site.

Accusing another poster of posting about his or her self is nothing but a cheap shot--especially when posts of common value are brought to the common table--for who here is telepathic? Who can look into the heart of another? Not me. Accusing people one dislikes personally for crimes against the commons are frequent here. They contribute nothing but rancor and make those who make them look like fools.

At any rate, any post made by anyone appears in a torrent rushing over a cliff. Blink, and it's gone.
posted by y2karl at 7:10 AM on April 30, 2003


« Older Mozilla Preview Issue   |   55 characters = 55 links? Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments