posting before perusing

[burnable]

Ignore this if this proposal already exists; I didn't know how to do a search on this particular thing.

There seems to be a habit of opening up a thread, and posting immediately before reading some or all of the existing posts on that thread.

Aside from the obvious annoyance for those who actually read the thread to have to reread the same points from those who insta-posted, potentially brilliant and discussion-provoking posts are buried by new posts and don't get the chance to be read by those who actually do read a few of the last posts before posting.

Is this an issue to anyone else? Perhaps there could be a time-lapse between when the thread is opened and when the person is allowed to post (and I wouldn't suggest that without the precedent of the search option requiring a wait between searches). That coerced delay might encourage people to actually look at what others have posted while they wait to post, and would sift out some annoying repetition.

This might seem minor, and maybe it is, but I feel that mere activity shouldn't prevail over actual productivity. Thanx

[slipknotpsycho]

errrr................... no.

[cannabis campbell]

Yeah I have noticed this like when i made a thread asking if there was a way I could get the audio from a video and just save it as a audio file 'king of the world' told me how to do it and I found that the best way without having to install any programs at all and I still got more people saying the same thing as him and people adding more replies and stuff when I had already got my answer kind of annoying.

I dont think there would be any way to stop people from doing this its really up to the reader if they want to read through everyones post in the thread or just read the first one really, we cant put a gun to their head and make them read it all lol.

[40oz]

I hate that too that many good posts are skipped over for not quite so good ones or ones that restate something. I don't think time-lapse whatever is the answer though.

[burnable]

My point seems to have been construed as much more fascist than I intended. Nobody would be required to read, just required to wait 45 seconds or so before hitting the 'post reply' button. Again I refer to the similar requirement of waiting between searches, which I don't understand but endorse as something there for good reason.

It wouldn't be a cure-all scenario by any means; the 45 secs could be used to think about what one intends to post, or to decide that the thread isn't worth the wait and they can move to a different one. Ideally they might read what others have posted. Perhaps even the thread creator could have the option of turning the time-lapse feature on or off, depending on the nature of the thread.

I really don't think it would be a big nuisance; it would promote quality posts with genuine, deliberate thought. Might also discourage the post-count junkies from cruising through and taking up space with useless posts.

You don't have to endorse the practicality of the idea; surely most people will see it as a nice, idealistic thought if nothing else.

[slipknotpsycho]

no, it would be a pain in the ass... ALOT of questions can be assessed and answered in under 15 seconds (unless you're a really slow reader and a chicken pecking typer)

it won't happen anyways tho..

[burnable]

no, it would be a pain in the ass... ALOT of questions can be assessed and answered in under 15 seconds (unless you're a really slow reader and a chicken pecking typer)

it won't happen anyways tho..


naturally, simple enough q's would merit an equally simple and brief response to maintain a status quo, but wouldn't the first post be better magnified by a response that had longer than 15 seconds of thought behind it? And do the veterans of the site like yourself really want to nickel-and-dime it with easy, closed-ended q's and comments? Perhaps the feature wouldn't kick in until there were five posts or so on the thread.

I don't know...I respect your seniority and familiarity with the nuances of the site, so maybe I'm misunderstanding something. Thanks for your attention

[slipknotpsycho]

well the reason i say it won't happen is cuz easier changes have been asked for, and they haven't happened... i just really don't see sundance doing it...

even besides that there would be no real way to enforce it, i mean you can put a countdown on reply time, but in reality i just see people (who don't have intention of reading the thread in the first place) opening the thread, and moving on for the momment and coming back....

i understand your concept behind the idea, but i just don't see it really helping in getting peopel to read threads before responding.

[burnable]

that's good enough for me; I think I've said everything that I can conceive as relevant to my point. I know this site is not a democracy.

[Rabbit Lion]

im just curious...what is perusing?

[happiestmferoutthere]

^ peruse : verb: To look at carefully or critically: check (out), examine, go over, inspect, scrutinize, study, survey, read, view, etc, etc :jointsmile:

[psteve]

Perfunctory perusal prior to posting perturbs picky pothead people.
Pictures at 11.

[happiestmferoutthere]

Perfunctory perusal prior to posting perturbs picky pothead people.


Say it...Don't spray it!!:stoned:


Hey, wait a minute. How old am I?:wtf:

[stinkyattic]

Just one more rule to add to the site... I'm sure that would go over HUGE.
We can't dictate courtesy beyond a certain point.

[burnable]

Just one more rule to add to the site... I'm sure that would go over HUGE.
We can't dictate courtesy beyond a certain point.

yeah, if you're more concerned with temporary convenience than with long-term quality.

I've given up on the feasibility of the idea, but I maintain that the value of what is left on a semi-permanent forum should trump whatever daily irritations people could have