Today, I opened one of your threads to find something I’ve been noticing in them lately. When you reference an older thread, instead of just linking to it, you add all this extra info until it’s somewhat unreadable. In fact, the first time I ran across it, I figured either my computer or yours didn’t parse the link properly and I refreshed the page a few times. In the thread I linked to, the first post has this in it:
Looking at some of your other threads, I found it’s a trend (I wanted to make sure this wasn’t just in my head).
Then I stumbled upon this train wreck and found out that you actually have a format for it
So, I’m just wondering, is there any reason for it? It seems like a lot of work to make your post quite a bit harder to read and it doesn’t really seem to add any useful information. When someone links to another thread, I personally, don’t really care when time of the day and date(in your time zone) it was posted at and what time of day and date (in your time zone) it was last posted to. Unless it’s relevant to the thread you’re creating, I don’t see why it matters who the first or last poster is or what forum it was in. Don’t get me wrong, it doesn’t bug me, I’m just curious.
Valid criticism, Joey P, and just my way of keeping tabs on other threads when I look back at them later. If somebody else just says something like:
– that thread on great TV shows or
– Lambguts thread about falling cinder blocks
– that old thread on burning dog or whatever
I’m prone to ignore the reference instead of going to look for it.
And once I do find one that’s six years old or only two or three people replied to it, I feel as if I have wasted my time.
So, as a courtesy, I include enough side info that others can judge whether looking at the referenced thread is worth their time.
Granted it’s harder to read. And my only suggestion would be to ignore the other threads if that’s not your thing. Better yet, if my threads annoy you so much, just skip them.
And it’s so kind of you to label the Lurkers thread as a train wreck. Nice!
I’d be curious as to how many other people know what that side info means. Honestly, until I happened upon the last thread I posted with the formula, I was pretty confused. Like I said, the first time I saw it, I just assumed my computer parsed the link wrong or you created the link wrong (accidentally grabbing to much extra info when cutting and pasting) or some how grabbed some HTML by accident.
Pretty sure I didn’t say that. In fact, I went out of my to say it didn’t bug me. I’m sorry you missed that part of it.
I still don’t know what all the extra stuff means, and it does mean that I’ve been avoiding zeldar threads, which I had enjoyed in the past. I would prefer just a link the thread.
That gets you down to two lines, includes most of the relevant information, and doesn’t form a massive text block. And I doubt that most people looking at these things are going to know what the two separate dates indicate, or find that information useful anyway, particularly when the start date and last-replied date are fairly close to each other, as in this case.
Just my opinion, worth about as much as you paid for it.
I appreciate the feedback and will try to cut back on the extra stuff. However, whenever there are questions about when the old thread was originally posted, or how many others participated, or how long it was active, I may just refer back to this thread for an explanation for why all I provide is a link.
The whole business with avoiding posts to old threads (see the raging zombie issue elsewhere – yes, look it up ) and providing instead a link to the old one(s) always seemed like busywork to me. But I have tried to play by the spirit of that rule with the added extras so that the referback might be useful.
It’s worked out both ways. As often as not the older thread gets revived and the thread I started with the reference to it (or them) just sits there. It’s sort of lose-lose, if you ask me.
The lack of consistency for dealing with zombies is a pain, but I can cut back on what I had been treating as helpful info, especially if that is driving others away from the idea of the thread to start with.
All in all, I am very pleased with the responses most of my threads have drawn, and if I have other foibles that make them difficult to get into, I’d like to hear more critiques on those issues.
If you provide a link to a thread and someone has questions about when the original thread was originally posted, or how many others participated, or how long it was active, presumably they can simply follow the link for answers to all of those questions.
This is one of those situations where “The Golden Rule” can bite you on the ass a bit. If this became a convention on the SDMB, I would give up on it. One link takes up 20% of my vertical real estate? No- that’s not a courtesy, it’s just a bit annoying.
If your OP in the thread about time went like this:
…then we still have all the information we really need. I know that the link goes to a thread from last summer, what it was about, and that it has been judged to have been a fun thread. That’s enough information to make a judgement about whether or not I need to follow the link.
In fact, if you present the information that way, people are* more* likely to take note of the age of the thread, because it’s right there in nice readable text, instead of something that you’d probably expect to be a case of “I didn’t know that extra stuff was on my clipboard when I pasted my link, and I forgot to clean it up.” (Which I always thought it was.) People are going to skim right over that block of context-less text and try to pick up the thread of your post.
I think your habit (though obviously well-intentioned) is a little bit misguided.
WRT not accidentally reviving zombie threads, one thing I used to do back when they were actively disallowed was when I linked to one, I would report it and ask a mod to lock it right away. Explaining that I just linked to it in a current thread so it was likely about to get a second life. Whether or not they ever did that, I don’t know, either way, it’s moot now.
Also, just to reinforce my point, Zeldar. It doesn’t bother me, I truly was just curious. The first time I saw it I assumed it was an accident and glossed right over it. But when I saw it a few more times I was only planning to ask what it meant. It wasn’t until I got to the last thread that ‘what is this’ turned in to ‘why?’ This thread was really only meant to be a ‘request for information’ and nothing more. It seems I wasn’t the only person who really didn’t know what it meant.
Thanks for the follow-up Joey P. I see your point. I got a bit steamed when you referred to the Lurkers invitation as a “train wreck.” I see that the last post or two where I got all self-indulgent about my first days here did bring the thread to a screeching halt.
Your curiosity is noted and based on the feedback from others supporting your confusion and curiosity about the overkill, I will try to keep that sort of thing to a minimum in future. If asked, I will provide specifics, not before.
Zeldar, don’t take this the wrong way but I was going to make the same suggestion (probably via PM) if Joey P hadn’t started it. The data are really useful and the research gratefully appreciated - but the style is very difficult to read, particularly when there are several threads referenced.
I agree, and as a telling point, in the thread referred to as a “train wreck,” in the very second post you asked why nobody was replying. I submit that nobody was replying because the OP made their eyes glaze over.
) and providing instead a link to the old one(s) always seemed like busywork to me. But I have tried to play by the spirit of that rule with the added extras so that the referback might be useful.