P&E and GD for sure. I’m not going to modnote 1 or 2 acronyms, but 6 I will for sure. In between lies the grey area.
But you are not the standard. You are just you.
Is this a new rule? Because I see nothing about acronyms in the new draft rules.
If you want the forums to be a welcoming place and not give off a vibe of “only the cool kids are allowed” then there should be more clarity regarding acronyms. Few things put people off more than exclusionary language.
It only requires you to perhaps use three extra words in the totality of the thread, not really a huge imposition,
We are all “just yous”. But I still strongly disagree that MSM or FOIA are obscure in either P&E or GD.
It doesn’t have to be a “rule” to be best practice. No one got a warning for a rule violation. As I see it, we are just being asked to be self-aware about such things. Makes sense to me. No harm can come of it.
The vibe spelling them all out like that gives isn’t “Warm and welcoming”, it’s “old fuddy-duddies”.
exactly, sensible modding as far as I’m concerned.
That goes both ways. Just because a person doesn’t know an acronym, doesn’t mean it is obscure. As a search of past posts of the acronyms in question in P&E or GD would show.
That attitude sort of makes the point for me.
So we have the imposition on multiple posters to go away and do multiple searches, or the imposition on the poster to use a few extra words, once.
Correct, better for one poster to do a little extra work, than many posters.
So if you thought WE was off base with the moderation, really the correct way to approach it would be to ask other readers of P&E if the great majority of them, like you, had no difficulty with any of the acronyms.
I don’t think it’s really about acronyms per se. If I’m unfamiliar with TPM, and ask what it is, and am told that it stands for “Talking Points Memo”, then in all likelihood I still don’t know what it means. I only know that “Talking Points Memo” is a news commentary website from seeing it in context, and I see “TPM” in that same context just as often. Likewise “FOIA”: If I didn’t know what the “Freedom of Information Act” was, then expanding the acronym would be meaningless. What I really need to know is that “FOIA” or “Freedom of Information Act” is a law that allows citizens to demand access to government documents.
The expansion of an acronym is not its meaning, merely its etymology. And most of the words we use, we use blissfully ignorant of their etymology.
it is one step closer to meaning though, and a reasonable step to do on behalf of the potentially uninformed reader.
Or I could do a straw poll - by, for example, searching and seeing how common the usage already was…
Agreed. The question at hand is whether that post was an example of excessive use of initialisms.
A casual glance makes it look that way, but in my view there were only two instances of what I’d call bad practice. “SHS” would read with more clarity if you’d just said “Sanders”, and something like “friend” or “associate” instead of BFF. To me, all the other initialisms were clear. “TPM” was obviously not clear to some, but in context it’s only important to know that it’s some site that’s being used as a source.
Sometimes these judgments are subjective, but respectfully, the term “FOIA” – whose common usage is reflected in 577 million Google hits – has been in common use in the media for nearly 50 years, and although it’s not the formal name of the pertinent legislation, the law itself goes back to 1965.
“MSM” is pretty colloquial and less defensible, and its use is probably less common outside political contexts. But it’s certainly been used frequently on this board.
The only quantitative information I get from that search (or from any other search I’ve tried) is “more than 50” posts in P&E containing TPM. I don’t have good intuition for whether >50 means that it’s widely known.
>50 posts and how many of them are complaints about obscure usage?
I’d never heard of TPM. I’d never heard of SHS. Neither the person by name, nor certainly her as someone so highly well-known that her very name had been reduced to an acronym.
“SHS” may in fact be utterly standard slang for the AR governor. When used in Arkansas by people from Arkansas. Much like everybody in the USA knew who GWB was while he was President. The whole rest of the country, much less the world, has pretty much no idea who the hell that person is.
I’d never use BFF in a political context, so that too was unfamiliar until I read it 3 times and realized “best friend” was the intended meaning. Jarring.
The overall tone of the writing was breezy insider talking to other breezy insiders. Lots of leaps of logic and the unfamiliar acronyms did not help. Not at all. I’m reminded of the old articles in IIRC Variety, the showbiz industry mag, full of cutesy breezy jargon. Or of diner slang.
If the goal is to be approachable, not off-putting to the interested generally, but not necessarily specifically informed reader, beware of how many total acronyms you’re throwing around. That post almost rose to the point of self-parody.
Another point: A post that is incomprehensible without reading the cite is not a good post. Or at least is not an audience-welcoming post.
A quick skim down the first posts in that particular forum, perhaps the first 20 threads, gives the following insight into the amount of acronyms used within each first post. (and I am including such “proper” acronyms as the FBI and state acronymns)
The sequence goes something like this…
1,1,2,1,1,2,7,1,1,1,0,0,0,2,2,1,1,1…etc
I lost the impetus to go further but who would like to guess what the outlier was?