How active should one be in a thread one has started or is participating in? Is it okay to open up a topic of discussion and simply see the conversation/debate/discussion pass by, or it considered bad form if the poster of the thread remains in the background?
Also, what does “OP” mean exactly? “Original post,” “original poster,” or something else?
Thanks!
WRS/thû
Both original post and original poster. You can usually tell by the context.
“Let’s stick to the OP” - original post
“What I think the OPer is saying” - original poster
“To answer the OP” - technically either
I’m pretty sure it’s okay to stand back and just read the posts as most of my GQ and GD threads have very little participation from me in them and I’ve never been admonished. If I’m starting a thread in one of those fora, it’s to hopefully get an expert answer, not to have a conversation.
I’ve always read it as “opening” post or poster.
Yeah, I’d say each thread is different and an OP may participate as much as he or she sees fit.
An OP could come from someone who wishes to discuss an issue and actively participates.
An OP could come from someone who’s genuinely interested in seeing the debate but doesn’t have a clear opinion and therefore wishes to watch the discussion.
I can’t see any hard and fast rule to it.
I hate it when someone opens a thread with an ambiguous question and doesn’t return to clarify it. Also, if the originator is asking for information or advice, it helps to hear an acknowledgement that the responses were helpful, or not.
My own opinion: It varies by specific situation.
For instance, one behavior called “trolling” is to open a highly controversial topic, and then never look at it or participate in it further. So, if we have a person who’s being a jerk in various ways, and he/she also has this behavior, we add it to the “naughty” list.
OTOH, this behavior in itself isn’t necessarily jerkish. For another instance, if you’re posing a question in General Questions, it’s not surprising that you wouldn’t have anything further to say – you posed the question because you didn’t know the answer, and you’re waiting for others to respond. That seems perfectly reasonable behavior.
OTOH, if you opened a post in Great Debates on a highly inflammatory topic, and then hadn’t reposted after four pages, I think most posters would consider that was sort of rude… if not so far as trolling.
So, I think it’s circumstantial.
I agree with Dewey Finn. I find it incredibly annoying when someone posts a question and then never acknowledges either whether the responses properly answer the question or the work that often goes into answering them.
The Dope is a community or it isn’t. If it is, then it’s right and proper to say thank you or give some recognition of the other peoples’ existence just as you do in the rest of your life. Imagine trying to get away with this behavior in a school, office, or group setting.
There may be exceptions, as there are in all things, but if you come back to read a thread you started then you should post back to it.
P.S. I cut guests somewhat more slack in this than members, since they’re not aware of the community aspects. But members really should know better.
I’m surprised to learn this. Do you know whether this belief is commonly held?
I don’t post many topics, post much at all, and I’m a sporadic lurker to boot, but I think it’s good manners to at least acknowledge the replies (and I try to do so). It also has the potential of cutting down on repeat threads, if a future searcher sees that their problem can be answered by reading an existing thread.
Beats me, and the answers here seem evenly split.
But in a perfect world all my beliefs would be commonly held! 
From previous threads on the subject, I would certainly think it is “commonly” held in the sense that a fair number of posters think so. I don’t know if it’s a majority opinion, though.
Personally, I don’t think it’s a big deal if the question is simple and straightforward and receives a definitive answer within a few posts. However, if responders are asking for clarification of a vague or difficult question, or for more details, it’s rude not to reply. Also, if it’s a difficult question that one or more responders have taken a good deal of trouble to answer, it’s only polite to acknowledge that.
Excellent, thanks.
You know, I’ve always wondered what’s appropriate here. I’m what you might call a “late adopter”: my only other exposure to this type of messaging was in the first BBSes or during the squalid, early days of CompuServe, and so I feel like I’m accustomed to a more austere form of communication.
Colibri’s post cements it, invaluably, for me. Further, it helps temper what Exapno Mapcase said earlier:
Nicely put. Cheers!
What about resurrecting a thread in order to express gratitude?
I know there is one thread, now dead (last post was the 10th of this month), that I have not really posted to in order to thank the posters. I paid close attention to what was said, but I did not participate much. Would it be kosher to resurrect it to thank them? Should I make a thank-you thread? Should I forget it but be careful to be more involved in the future?
WRS
Let it go. It’s nice to get some acknowledgement, but every time an asked and answered thread gets bumped in GQ, it a) moves more current threads down the page, and b) invites some comment about 1920’s death rays which again results in a).
Back when the resources were very, very strained; and the board was very, very slow; I thought that throw-away mini responses, no matter how polite, were frowned upon. This would not only include the posts that just had “Thanks!” but all the other “Me, too!” “ROFL!” “Good one!” “Pulling up a chair.” “;)” posts that didn’t add any new content.
Anyway, when I feel obliged to thank someone, or to applaud a post, I at least try to add new info or commentary so that the post isn’t a ‘throw-away.’
Peace.
I’m pretty sure the GQ FAQ says specifically not to make “Thank You” posts. Let’s see if i can dig it up…
Nope, I can’t find it. Maybe I dreamed that rule?
This Pit thread about making U-Turns is kind of annoying because the OP hasn’t come back once in the 72 hours the thread has been up. A good number of people have asked this person questions, or speculated, but the OP has not said a word.
I mean, it’s entirely possible that this poster has been without the internet for the last 72 hours. But if he/she is just watching the thread and not saying anything, it’s sort of rude.
/S
No, I’m pretty sure I remember reading that too. It was a bandwidth waste. Maybe it was changed once the board got tuned up.
I used to say thanks and then add some comment that hopefully made that final response a bit more substantive, otherwise just let the thread die on its own.
There’s no problem with posting to a thread to which the last prior post was two weeks ago. A late thank-you is better than none. … up to a point. It would be a different story if the last prior post was six months ago.