D&D General Poll: Should a poster be expected to read (or at least skim) all posts before posting in a thread?

[Scott Christian]

another way to consider the responses so far, replying in a long thread could be considered a heavy waste of time, as by the admission of the poll, a good majority of people are probably skipping the response anyway. So we have a lot of posters and few readers, everyone rushing to give their viewpoint to an audience that is largely ignoring them.

You might question this logic. Many people I know, myself included, might read the OP, post an answer, then go back and read the comments. Just because someone is posting prior to reading the comments (which is what you asked), doesn't mean they don't read the responses afterward.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You might question this logic. Many people I know, myself included, might read the OP, post an answer, then go back and read the comments. Just because someone is posting prior to reading the comments (which is what you asked), doesn't mean they don't read the responses afterward.

Eh, based on my experience, you're right in using a conditional for reading the OP. The question isn't whether people read the thread ... it's whether they bother to read the OP.

I'd say a large number of people post based on the title of the thread, a large number of people post based on the last few posts, and you're lucky if someone, you know, bothers to read the OP and the thread.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'd say a large number of people post based on the title of the thread, a large number of people post based on the last few posts, and you're lucky if someone, you know, bothers to read the OP and the thread.

I think the title thing is usually only an issue when the OP decides to pick a misleading title, to be honest.

Trouble is, I've seen quite a few times (here and elsewhere) where the OP posts a really clear, short, direct title, asking for something that people are excited to answer or talk about, then has a mumble-y vague meandering post in the actual thread when they, in the middle or paragraph or w/e, ask for stuff from people that's totally out of line with the title (or significantly deviant from it at least).

Then what you see is people do respond to the title, not to the obscure conditionals specified in the middle of a paragraph by the OP. And the usually the OP could easily have had a more correct title.

It's like, if your title doesn't exactly describe what you want, bullet points and bold people, that's what you need if you want answers. Better yet don't have a misleading title though.

 

[Stalker0]

How about YOU not post if you don't have time and don't tell me what to do?

I am having a debate with you, not demanding action from you. No need to get angry.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think the title thing is usually only an issue when the OP decides to pick a misleading title, to be honest.

Trouble is, I've seen quite a few times (here and elsewhere) where the OP posts a really clear, short, direct title, asking for something that people are excited to answer or talk about, then has a mumble-y vague meandering post in the actual thread when they, in the middle or paragraph or w/e, ask for stuff from people that's totally out of line with the title (or significantly deviant from it at least).

Then what you see is people do respond to the title, not to the obscure conditionals specified in the middle of a paragraph by the OP. And the usually the OP could easily have had a more correct title.

It's like, if your title doesn't exactly describe what you want, bullet points and bold people, that's what you need if you want answers. Better yet don't have a misleading title though.

If you spend your time arguing with someone about the title that you would have written ... then what are you really doing? Are you adding any value, or just arguing?

If I have a better title ... then I'll use it on my own post. If I'm arguing with someone about their post's title, then I clearly have take a wrong turn.

 

[Dragonsbane]

How can this be done when a thread has dozens of pages. Come on now.

 

[Scott Christian]

If you spend your time arguing with someone about the title that you would have written ... then what are you really doing? Are you adding any value, or just arguing?

If I have a better title ... then I'll use it on my own post. If I'm arguing with someone about their post's title, then I clearly have take a wrong turn.

I think Ruin specifically was discussing misleading titles - clickbait. Not necessarily arguing over semantic considerations.

 

[Scott Christian]

Eh, based on my experience, you're right in using a conditional for reading the OP. The question isn't whether people read the thread ... it's whether they bother to read the OP.

I don't know many people on these forums that don't read the entire OP message. I think when it comes to things like Reddit, you might very well be correct. But here... not so sure.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think Ruin specifically was discussing misleading titles - clickbait. Not necessarily arguing over semantic considerations.

1. "Then what you see is people do respond to the title, not to the obscure conditionals specified in the middle of a paragraph by the OP. And the usually the OP could easily have had a more correct title."

2. If you are arguing with the OP about their title, then you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Titles can be for all sorts of reasons- one of my last titles was just because I wanted to quote Trotsky, for example. If you don't like the title, then make your own post. But if you are engaged in an argument about the title, then you aren't either engaged with the OP or adding to the conversation, you're just arguing. If you like arguing, if that's your thing, that's cool. But that's what you're doing. Don't suffer the delusion that you're making the world a better place, or that the OP will go, "Why thank you, I will, from now on, endeavor to use your criteria for my titles."

3. Ugh, whatever. Arguing, all the way down. Carry on!

 

[Thomas Shey]

You might question this logic. Many people I know, myself included, might read the OP, post an answer, then go back and read the comments. Just because someone is posting prior to reading the comments (which is what you asked), doesn't mean they don't read the responses afterward.

Though that can depend on what the topic is for me.