Pet Peeve about this Chatroom

[Jimbo57]

I have just been irked so often this afternoon by repetitions of the same bad manners on the forum that I simply had to mention it.

Why, oh why, oh why, do "contributors" write a meaningless, non-informative thread title and then post nothing but a link to a different website in the body of their post?

To me that is sheer thoughtless laziness. Even a couple of sentences describing the link would enable us to decide whether to waste our time clicking-through to it. Nine times out of ten the link leads to a site of no interest whatsoever but the only way to discover that fact is to click on it.

Come on, guys. Play fair.

Please.

[stamper]

I sympathize with you but I think it will still carry on regardless. I asked one member what he thought about a link he had posted without any description and he stated he didn't have an opinion. Unfortunately he then decided to ridicule anyone who had contrary views with respect to the posted link. I have seen this type of posting described as click bait. 

[PeterAit]

I have just been irked so often this afternoon by repetitions of the same bad manners on the forum that I simply had to mention it.

Why, oh why, oh why, do "contributors" write a meaningless, non-informative thread title and then post nothing but a link to a different website in the body of their post?

To me that is sheer thoughtless laziness. Even a couple of sentences describing the link would enable us to decide whether to waste our time clicking-through to it. Nine times out of ten the link leads to a site of no interest whatsoever but the only way to discover that fact is to click on it.

Amen and well said. I never click on such descriptionless links. It's even more annoying than the use of the inane "+1" to express agreement with a post.

[pegelli]

Agree, These days I don't even open the threads started by this member.

On the other hand I don't use the ignore function of the site. I figure my scroll wheel and back button are fast enough to not lose any significant time with useless posts.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

That is probably because there is no "like" button.

Best regards
Erik

Amen and well said. I never click on such descriptionless links. It's even more annoying than the use of the inane "+1" to express agreement with a post.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

If there is nothing else in the body of the post but a link, and the title is "meaningless and non-informative," then the only remaining factor in deciding whether to click on it or not is the reputation of the poster. If, nine out of ten, that member posted links of no interest whatsoever for you then you shouldn't click on it the eleventh time. Simple.

It, however, doesn't necessarily mean that the link has "no interest whatsoever" for others. As for Isaac, as I suspect several posters in this thread are hinting at, he has built a reputation of posting interesting and provocative links, hardly ever "click-baits."

If you see the poster has only a few posts and nothing in the body of the post but a link, chances are it is a click-bait spam.

[Peter McLennan]

Slobodan, you assume that we're familiar with a poster's reputation and/or care enough to notice their post count.  I agree with the OP.  It's an excellent practice to include a brief description of the post content if the link isn't self explanatory.

[Isaac]

Why, oh why, oh why, do "contributors" write a meaningless, non-informative thread title and then post nothing but a link to a different website in the body of their post?

Please provide specific examples.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Please provide specific examples.

Some people post links with no explanation, others post explanations with no links 

[Zorki5]

I have just been irked so often this afternoon by repetitions of the same bad manners on the forum that I simply had to mention it.

Why, oh why, oh why, do "contributors" write a meaningless, non-informative thread title and then post nothing but a link to a different website in the body of their post?

To me that is sheer thoughtless laziness. Even a couple of sentences describing the link would enable us to decide whether to waste our time clicking-through to it. Nine times out of ten the link leads to a site of no interest whatsoever but the only way to discover that fact is to click on it.

Come on, guys. Play fair.

Please.

Good points, BUT...

Have you tried to suggest that in any of those threads? Did that person ignore your suggestions, so that you had to start a new thread about it?

[Schewe]

I have just been irked so often this afternoon by repetitions of the same bad manners on the forum that I simply had to mention it.

Why, oh why, oh why, do "contributors" write a meaningless, non-informative thread title and then post nothing but a link to a different website in the body of their post?

Not for nothing but it's just a bit irrating that you don't post a thread or link to the poster you are pissed off about. Really hard to carry a grudge against somebody one doesn't know about.

[Jimbo57]

Good points, BUT...

Have you tried to suggest that in any of those threads? Did that person ignore your suggestions, so that you had to start a new thread about it?

So many different folk do it. It was easier for me to post a general thread about a general problem than to reply specifically to each and every one.

[Isaac]

So many different folk do it. It was easier for me to post a general thread about a general problem than to reply specifically to each and every one.

The question was whether "you tried to suggest that in any of those threads", not whether you tried in every one. The request was for "specific examples", not for every example. You have not shown a single specific problem, let alone a general problem.

You have done what was easier for you; and yet when others do what we might guess is easier for them, you complain that it is "sheer thoughtless laziness".

Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.

[Jimbo57]

The question was whether "you tried to suggest that in any of those threads", not whether you tried in every one. The request was for "specific examples", not for every example. You have not shown a single specific problem, let alone a general problem.

Given that most respondents to my thread seem to agree with me, I don't know why I bother replying to your inane trolling, but here are a few to be going on with:

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106630.0

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106784.0

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=103980.0

[AreBee]

Jimbo57,

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106784.0

The subject line of the thread started by ripgriffith clearly states "...offered without comment".

[PeterAit]

Not for nothing but it's just a bit irrating that you don't post a thread or link to the poster you are pissed off about. Really hard to carry a grudge against somebody one doesn't know about.

It's not just one person, of course. And the OP is not, as I see it, pissed off at a person but at a behavior.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Every single example CLEARLY indicates what the thread is about, either in its title or the link itself. Not to mention that two of the three are started by a guy with 13+K posts and a legendary reputation on LuLa.

[Isaac]

Given that most respondents to my thread seem to agree with me, …

Several of those respondents - who took the opportunity to post innuendo - may not actually agree with you, now that they see who you complain about.

[pcgpcg]

 /\
  l
  l
  l
  l
 
#whitepeopleproblems

[Zorki5]

Given that most respondents to my thread seem to agree with me, I don't know why I bother replying to your inane trolling, but here are a few to be going on with:

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106630.0

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106784.0

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=103980.0

Hmm... You know, I do not see an issue with first messages of any of those threads. In every case I could clearly see what it was about, either from topic title, or from link URL.

Moreover, those messages provoked some interesting discussions, in two of which I participated.

Yes, I agreed with the points made in your original post, but I imagined something very different.