Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Jimbo57 on January 09, 2016, 09:09:15 am
-
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.
-
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. :(
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Please provide specific examples.
Some people post links with no explanation, others post explanations with no links ;)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
/\
l
l
l
l
#whitepeopleproblems
-
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.
-
Perhaps the reason is that no comments are posted along with the links is that the originator hasn't read the link themselves or they might have read the link and didn't understand the content?
-
I see no problem at all with the links to posts you put forward as examples and do not understand at all why you'd find those irritating.
Regards, Sander
-
I see no problem at all with the links to posts you put forward as examples and do not understand at all why you'd find those irritating.
Regards, Sander
It depends on the originators motivation with respect to posting links. Is it to provoke an interesting discussion or just provoke.....?
-
It's even more annoying than the use of the inane "+1" to express agreement with a post.
BTW, I don't think there's anything wrong with the use of "+1".
Times have changed, people now write wa-ay more wa-a-ay shorter messages than they used to write. They are used to "Like" buttons. And writing style reflects that, whether we like it or not.
I'd like to recommend the famous Jargon File as a good reference of how the use of computers affected writing style:
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/writing-style.html
Even though the chapter I linked is titled Hacker Writing Style, it's not just about hackers...
Look, for instance, at my first sentence. Old typographic conventions would require putting full stop inside quotes, but I doubt I ever did that. Why? It's practical, and eliminates ambiguity in certain important cases. You may want to refer to the Jargon File for complete explanation.
-
I agree with some others about those 3 examples. In two of the cases, the OP simply presents to the community an article that he thinks they would find interesting. What's wrong with that? I presume that you think that the OP should have included a sentence or two of introduction. I guess he could have, but it's no more time-consuming to read his intro than it is to click on the link and see its own intro.
I even enjoy it when an OP's subject line is cryptic, it arouses my curiosity, which is not always satisfied but usually fun anyway. I'd say that in a coffee corner type section, that is perfectly fine. It's supposed to be fun. I can see where mis-directing subject lines in a more technically specific thread might be less well-received, but I don't think that has been an issue on these pages.
-
It depends on the originators motivation with respect to posting links. Is it to provoke an interesting discussion or just provoke.....?
Good question Robert, perhaps other examples might make it clearer, personally I'm fine with the posts from the examples whatever their intent was, I clicked on two out of three of those links and liked where I ended up.
Cheers Sander
-
BTW, I don't think there's anything wrong with the use of "+1".
+1.
Thank you for that, Zorki5!
I am perhaps one of the most frequent users of the infamous and much maligned "+1", and Peter's comment annoyed me and started me thinking about alternatives.
Sometimes I feel I have something useful to contribute to a thread, and when I feel that way, I do try to express my point of view. Sometimes I find it difficult to express exactly what I feel, and in those cases I often wait a while to see if some gem will occur to me. And often I see that someone else has expressed very well exactly what I want to say, and when that happens, "+1" is the most succinct way of expressing agreement.
To my mind, "+1" has the virtues of being (a) very quick to write, (b) very quick to read, and (c) obvious in its meaning.
None of the alternatives I have thought of share all of these desirable characteristics. Here are some I have tried:
"--- has said exactly what I would have said if I had thought of saying it."
"I feel the same way about it."
"You said it, pal!"
"I agree with --- ."
"Yes."
I do think that "+1" should always be preceded by a quote selecting the part of a statement that one is agreeing to.
-Eric
-
+1.
+1. ;D
-
It depends on the originators motivation with respect to posting links. Is it to provoke an interesting discussion or just provoke.....?
Examples?
-
I don't see much point in +1 or in any of the options. Simple agreement isn't that interesting, and in large scale contexts it can be ruinous. +1 and Like at least contain the disaster in the more populous spaces, but the don't render dumb agreement interesting.
Have you really nothing to add? No shading of the ideas that might shed some light, or even entertain?
What a shame.
-
.... Have you really nothing to add?...
I always thought that the + in +1 stands for a math operation known as "adding." Was I wrong?
-
I don't let myself get irritated about it but I agree it's not in the spirit of what I perceive the point of this forum is.
I think they are just trying to direct traffic elsewhere. I usually just ignore them.
-
To be fair, there are several ways this happens.
Rob C, for instance, has plenty to say but tends to reserve his commentary for a little later in the thread. This strikes me as a fine approach, because initial commentary tends to set the tone and Rob would like to see what people have to say first. I trust him to weigh in later with some ideas and opinions.
Isaac doesn't. He doesn't seem to be a spambot, although the jury is still out on that, but he doesn't have any opinions or ideas that he's willing to share. He wants to provoke discussion, but not to take part.
Then there are the actual, blissfully rare, spambots who really are just trying to drive traffic to other places.
I've named names, but these are archetypes, not people. The names are just handy examples of various points in the spectrum.
-
I do think that "+1" should always be preceded by a quote selecting the part of a statement that one is agreeing to.
This is true not only for "+1", but for pretty much any comment on a previous comment.
-
... Isaac... wants to provoke discussion, but not to take part...
Which falls somewhere in-between the Socratic method and how shrinks operate. In other words, quite common and legitimate.
Isaac often posts in context. The context being on-going debates in several threads over the span of sometimes several years, where certain "usual suspects" have staked out their positions quite clearly. In that context, Isaac might post a link, without any further explanation, that supports or challenges those views.
The whole approach is more like an inside joke, i.e., understandable only to the members who are familiar with the forum history of debates. I can see that newbies might feel excluded or puzzled, but what is the alternative? To preceded every such link with an "executive summary" of years of debates and stances?
Bottom line: those who get it, get it. If you don't, don't click on it. Simple.
-
plus one: Usually written '+1', used in a forum post to indicate that the post serves no purpose other than to increase the poster's postcount. Usually used after an empty post along the lines of 'I agree'. Often used in a sarcastic manner to indicate the pointlessness of the entire thread
-
+1
-
Another forum which I occasionally frequent has quite strict rules about starting threads and rights to do so are removed should the OP not present a constructive argument with a link or reference if appropriate. Mind you, it is a political site and attracts all sorts of attempts to promote the weird, wonderful and extreme, so any similarities with Lula must be purely coincidental.
-
Generally speaking I support the +1. IMO there is nothing worse than someone repeating what someone else has stated. Some members are more eloquent than others and I find that adding +1 is supportive of their efforts. On the other hand you have members who ramble on about something and it is obvious they could have stated their point of view with half the amount of words they used.
-
plus one: Usually written '+1', used in a forum post to indicate that the post serves no purpose other than to increase the poster's postcount. Usually used after an empty post along the lines of 'I agree'. Often used in a sarcastic manner to indicate the pointlessness of the entire thread
I see no sarcasm or double meaning in the use of +1 and I see its application broader than just increasing the poster's post count. I'm with Stamper, it's a way to express your agreement with a previous poster, no more and no less.
-
Quote Isaac
plus one: Usually written '+1', used in a forum post to indicate that the post serves no purpose other than to increase the poster's postcount. Usually used after an empty post along the lines of 'I agree'. Often used in a sarcastic manner to indicate the pointlessness of the entire thread
unquote
This is cynical?
-
+1
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
-1
-
...This is cynical?
That was a quote from Urban Dictionary, one of several there. And, yes, quite cynical. There is nothing wrong with +1 (or -1, for that matter).
-
-1
I'm delighted to see -1 getting some use here. I was thinking of starting to use it myself, so Thank You Otto for getting the ball rolling!
;)
-
I'm delighted to see -1 getting some use here. I was thinking of starting to use it myself, so Thank You Otto for getting the ball rolling!
;)
Plus.....whatever!
-
Some folks might want to try using "+/-0" to indicate that they have nothing to say and don't agree or disagree with any previous post, but still want to announce to the world that they have nothing to say. 8)
Example:
+/-0
-
Some folks might want to try using "+/-0" to indicate that they have nothing to say and don't agree or disagree with any previous post, but still want to announce to the world that they have nothing to say. 8)
Example:
+/-0
+1
-
Some folks... don't agree or disagree...
I almost always have an opinion, but not always agree with it ;)
-
1<->-1
... for those of unstable opinions...
-
I'm rubbish at maths so could we just skip all the +1 and -1 stuff and stick to English please.......
Jim
-
I'm rubbish at maths so could we just skip all the +1 and -1 stuff and stick to English please.......
How do you manage to dial in exposure compensation? Or does you camera have "Lighter" / "Darker" labels? :o
-
I really have no opinion on this topic and this is a totally superfluous post on my part, made for the sole purpose of running up my post count in case there's any value in that. Now, where is that sarcasm emoticon?
-
I like unicorns (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky3Ordfqn88)
so there!
-
Now, where is that sarcasm emoticon?
Hmm... No sarcasm emoticon indeed.
Now, THAT is a serious omission, totally worthy of its own thread in About This Site section! >:(
Any takers?
-
Hmm... No sarcasm emoticon indeed.
Now, THAT is a serious omission, totally worthy of its own thread in About This Site section! >:(
Any takers?
I posted my sarcastic humor because this topic has almost 1400 views and 55 responses. The topic below is a guy asking a real question about securing his stand and lighting instrument on location and got 129 views and 2 responses. Maybe the two answers were all that was needed, but it just struck me as a little twisted. Carry on.
-
I posted my sarcastic humor because this topic has almost 1400 views and 55 responses.
And this is hardly surprising. I believe there is even an "internet law" about that... Something along the lines of heat/emotions of the discussion being the reciprocal of the importance of the topic being discussed.
The topic below is a guy asking a real question about securing his stand and lighting instrument on location and got 129 views and 2 responses. Maybe the two answers were all that was needed, but it just struck me as a little twisted. Carry on.
Again, hardly surprising given that he posted his question in The Coffee Corner, while there is Cameras, Lenses, and Shooting Gear section (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?board=3.0) which would be IMHO perfectly suitable for that.
So what should we do? Stop having a bit of fun while all serious questions get answered? Life is too short for that...
-
How do you manage to dial in exposure compensation? Or does you camera have "Lighter" / "Darker" labels? :o
Mine does:
-
So what should we do? Stop having a bit of fun while all serious questions get answered? Life is too short for that...
Yes that's it. No fun until all the serious questions have been answered. Now where again is that sarcasm emoticon? ;)
-
I posted my sarcastic humor because this topic has almost 1400 views and 55 responses. The topic below is a guy asking a real question about securing his stand and lighting instrument on location and got 129 views and 2 responses. Maybe the two answers were all that was needed, but it just struck me as a little twisted. Carry on.
Think about it.
Everyone can have a view on the trivial questions. Only a tiny minority are likely to have the experience or knowledge to make a meaningful contribution to any specific serious topic.
So, not really twisted; just a reflection of reality.
-
Only a tiny minority are likely to have the experience or knowledge to make a meaningful contribution to any specific serious topic.
... or start a thread on a serious topic, for that matter. ;)
-
I almost always have an opinion, but not always agree with it ;)
There's nothing like expressing an opinion to discover whether or not you do agree with it. "How can I know what I think until I hear what I say?"
Jeremy
-
There's nothing like expressing an opinion to discover whether or not you do agree with it. "How can I know what I think until I hear what I say?"
Jeremy
Or, indeed, how will this thing that i think stand up to examination by people with backgrounds and viewpoints different from mine?
-
Or, indeed, how will this thing that i think stand up to examination by people with backgrounds and viewpoints different from mine?
Rephrased as: "How can I know how wrong everyone else is unless I give them the opportunity to demonstrate how wrong they are?"
-
Rephrased as: "How can I know how wrong everyone else is unless I give them the opportunity to demonstrate how wrong they are?"
+1 :-)