Everybody Had Enough of Everyone Posting Whole Articles?

I don't mind reading pertinent cuttings from article, but if I see I have to scroll forever to get to the end of it, I'm apt not to read it at all.

One of the things I like about A2K is that, even if a persons personal post is long, it's in their words....

This reminds me. To me a related thing - distracting like LONG articles, is when someone posts and it's all mashed together in one long paragraph.

Makes it harder to follow.

0 Replies

Okay. I could use some help here. When I posted a link on this thread, it worked, but on my virtual radio station it did not.

Trying again:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050831/ap_on_re_us/hurricane_katrina

0 Replies

See what I mean?

0 Replies

I almost never follow links, especially from those I am not acquainted with. At least give the most essential paragraph, so I know if I want to bother with it.

Still, if the paste fills several screens, it is going to have to be very interesting before I read it. Oh yes, add your own commentary, or you are tellling me its value right there.

0 Replies

I really don't see the problem, kelticwizard. As with any thread, if you don't want to read the whole thing then you can skip it.

I've copied-and-pasted articles: if it's especially long I'll post excerpts, with a link to the original story. If it's a particularly interesting article from a subscription-only site, like the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune, I'll post the entire thing.

I agree with nimh: I like getting a sampling of views from sources that I would otherwise not read. But if it's too long or the subject doesn't interest me, I won't bother.

Actually, the longest posts I've ever seen on A2K aren't c&p's from news sites, but rather personal screeds from one-issue zealots. I tend to ignore those as well.

0 Replies

Bella Dea wrote:

revel wrote:
No offense to anyone here, but is there a dearth of space in forums?

Please... Do you want to wade through pages and pages of articles you don't want to read just to make a response?

Like others have said, sometimes there are interesting articles (or post) and sometimes there are not. If it grabs me I'll read it no matter long it is, if it don't I'll skip it.

0 Replies

Yep.

0 Replies

Bella Dea wrote:

revel wrote:
No offense to anyone here, but is there a dearth of space in forums?

Please... Do you want to wade through pages and pages of articles you don't want to read just to make a response?

Why would you have to do that?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Bella Dea wrote:
revel wrote:
No offense to anyone here, but is there a dearth of space in forums?

Please... Do you want to wade through pages and pages of articles you don't want to read just to make a response?

Why would you have to do that?

In some threads, there are pages and pages of "proof" to support someones opinion and I can't stand it. If you post an article for others to read, then fine. But 18 articles "proving" someone else shares your view is a waste of time to me. "Sourcing" something is different. Quoting something and saying, "here is where I get my info from" is one thing.

Why is everyone so defensive about me hating to wade through articles? Seriously.

0 Replies

Not defensive, just wondering why you would have to wade through pages and pages of articles in order to just to make a response. You can click "Post reply" on any page, right?

(I mean, I'll admit that I'm one of those perfectionists who feels that I should really first read all the posts in the thread before adding mine, but most people dont care anyway, I dont think.)

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Not defensive, just wondering why you would have to wade through pages and pages of articles in order to just to make a response. You can click "Post reply" on any page, right?

(I mean, I'll admit that I'm one of those perfectionists who feels that I should really first read all the posts in the thread before adding mine, but most people dont care anyway, I dont think.)

I like to at least skim, if not read everything, before I post because if I don't, inevitably I will say something that's already been said or reply to someone who's changed their opinion.

0 Replies

my opinion, for what it's worth; if the purpose of a thread is to discuss an article, it's more convenient to post the entire article rather than ask each reader to click a link to the article. but posting an entire article in rebuttal to a post has to be overkill in most instances--an excerpt or two and a link to the article quoted should suffice.

i'd also be interested in knowing what impact if any the length of a post has on a2k performance. i was under the impression that it was mainly the total number of posts and users that affected performance, sometimes even preventing access to the site.

0 Replies

BBB
My main reason for posting entire articles is that they soon disappear and you have to search through archives to find them. Most newspapers charge you for doing that or you have to be a subscriber.

I used to just post links to an article. I received complaints that the article has disappeared from the site. I would spend hours trying to find it and post it. I got tired of that and A2Kers got tired of not being able to find the articles, so now I post some articles in total.

I agree with those who say they just scroll by long articles if they are of no interest to me. If the article is of interest to you, then read it. Be my guest.

BBB Smile

0 Replies

Re: BBB

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

If the article is of interest to you, then read it. Be my guest.

BBB

i do read some of them, and enlightening they are. thanks. Smile

0 Replies

Bella Dea wrote:

Please... Do you want to wade through pages and pages of articles you don't want to read just to make a response.

nimh wrote:

Why would you have to do that?

Bella Dea wrote:

In some threads, there are pages and pages of "proof" to support someones opinion and I can't stand it.

Why is everyone so defensive about me hating to wade through articles? Seriously.

Bella Dea put it succintly. If you are in a discussion or debate with someone, and you make a point, it often happens that they just google and put up whole articles supporting their view. If it is a news article or from a recognized journalist, it seems to trump a post written by a member.

If the individual does not answer the article, then presumably the cut-and-paster has won the point.

There are two things wrong with this. First, there is the issue of initiative. If you disagree with someone who takes the time to put his/her own thoughts into a post, you should at least take the time to compose your own rebuttal. At least most of the time.

Second, the cut-and-paster is often being lazy. Frequently they really don't know that much about the subject, but "the other side" has scored a point, so off they go a-googling to come up with something-anything-in rebuttal. When they find it, they cut-and-paste it.

Whereupon someone from "the other side" is either stuck having to rebut the work of a professional writer, or hit google to come up with something in response. Threads become dueling cut-and-pastes. Nobody's actually saying anything in their own words.

There is room for the entire article, there is room for quoting other people to support one's claims. But it should be done occasionally, not as a steady diet. there is a balance to everything.

I think the politics section is going out of balance in this regard.

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

my opinion, for what it's worth; if the purpose of a thread is to discuss an article, it's more convenient to post the entire article rather than ask each reader to click a link to the article. but posting an entire article in rebuttal to a post has to be overkill in most instances--an excerpt or two and a link to the article quoted should suffice.

Yes, that is my point. When someone wants to rebut an assertion, what they are really saying is "I expect you to read 1,500 words by a professional writer that rebuts your claim". That's asking a lot of the readers.

Sometimes those articles can be helpful, but a little goes a long way. Quoting relevant passages makes the point, especially if you include the link.

0 Replies

I offend in the other direction, in that I have a long running thread with about eight pages of posts mostly by me - that's my land use thread. I post links in it to articles I've culled from, mostly but not always, an architectural news compiling website. By the time I've read about a week's worth of articles, usually 20-30, and post the links, I'm a little pooped to then immediately put in my own two cents on each of the four or five articles I've chosen, what with my attention deficit (kidding, sort of).

But I do understand that the general subject of land use doesn't interest all that many people in the first place, and to be confronted with just links can be a yawn (that has bothered me too) so I'm not upset or anything. The links on those pages still work, at least the ones I've double checked, and the topic serves as my own sort of land use file.

I've also wondered about the matter of copyright, re cut and pasting whole articles, even when giving the source. I don't know the pros and cons on that.

0 Replies

Re: BBB
I can appreciate that sometimes links do not work. About all I can say is that if you copy the first few words of a sentence and enter it in Google, you often can find any number of places the article has been posted besides the original source. If you do so and the article appears listed in Google, if you hit "cached" in the Google listing even expired articles appear.

There is always room for the occasional article quoted in it's entirety. There is always room for the occasional cartoon, or for the interesting graphic.

But I also think that as we look down the pages of A2K, most of the writing should be by the members themselves, most of the time. Otherwise I don't think we are having a discussion, I think we are having dueling cut-and-pastes.

0 Replies

I like BBB's approach. Personally, I think it's a tempest in a teapot anyway.

0 Replies

sometimes posting an entire article is cool. my problem is that most articles repeat a lot of back story that's already become empirical. i'm more interested in the current developments of a story.

it is more convenient though to be able to link to an article. then i can save the page as text and read it without distraction when there'e more time. it's much more disappointing to me when a quote comes out of the ether without a source. then we have to two-step it getting to the original text.

none of it is enough to ruin my day though. 2 Cents

0 Replies

Everybody Had Enough of Everyone Posting Whole Articles?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know