With reference to HJ's thread above.
Might it please be possible for Stephen to tweak the site so that each post is automatically numbered for easy quoting and finding by readers as can be seen here:
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=596...5
Posters could then simply refer to 'Post No.xx above'.
|
Are you aware that it is possible to provide a link to a post eg.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=81101&...t
I can see that you might want numbers as well - just wanted to check.
Edited by Focus {P} on 16/12/2009 at 22:15
|
Re: Post No.2.
Yes but I am getting at the problem of people wanting to refer to earlier posts in the *same* thread and doing so by quoting the entire post or chunks of same.
How much easier it woulld be for all readers if posters simply quoted a post number (as I have just done) if they wanted to comment on it.
|
Yes but I am getting at the problem of people wanting to refer to earlier posts in the *same* thread
...and one solution is to use a link as I did above (unless I've misunderstood), or when appropriate to use the Reply and Quote Original Message buttons (with editing) as I have done here.
However, personally I wouldn't object to numbers being available as well.
|
|
|
In reply to post #3
Funny thing though, on the forums with numbered posts nobody ever does bother referring to the number.
Moneysaving expert is a poor example anyway - it isn't even threaded, and posters quote bigger chunks than they do here. New posts always appear at the end.
There are better ways IMO - indenting replies is useful, but too many people just reply at the bottom of a thread instead of directly to the post they mean to reply to, so even that doesn't work.
|
|
Because this one is newer than my last post but will appear above it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And which number post do you think this one is then? It won't work on here.
|
And which number post do you think this one is then? It won't work on here.
You mean because the numbers won't be sequential? I don't think that matters - they would just be labels.
|
Re: Focus {P} on Wed 16 Dec 09 23:15
Just a suggestion, but we could reply to specific posts like I have done here.
|
|
|
|
I prefer to ......
Click on "Reply to this message".
Click on "Quote Original Message", leaving the >> in place.
Delete excess parts of original message, leaving just the relevant part.
It's then immediately obvious exactly what you're replying to.
|
I prefer to ...... Click on "Reply to this message".
You might want to refer to a post without actually replying to it. For example, I am replying to L'escargot's post, but I would like to refer to the post earlier where I said the same thing (about using the Reply and Quote Original Message buttons).
Yes, you can use the date, but (1) it's not so easy to write it (easier to get wrong), and (2) it's not so easy to find it (posts are not always ordered chronologically*), and (3) it might not be unique.
I'm still not that bothered about it, but I think I can see the advantages.
* means that finding a number isn't a straightforward as it could be, but finding a 3 digit (max) number in an unordered sequence is easier than finding a specific date/time.
Edited by Focus {P} on 17/12/2009 at 07:52
|
You might want to refer to a post without actually replying to it.
To me, "refer to" and "reply to" mean one and the same, in the context of internet forums.
|
To me "refer to" and "reply to" mean one and the same in the context of internet forums.
Surely you can 'refer' to one post when replying to another?
|
|
|
|
I prefer to ...... Click on "Reply to this message". Click on "Quote Original Message" leaving the >> in place. Delete excess parts of original message leaving just the relevant part.
That's exactly as it should be done.
Some people have adopted their own style of highlighting the post they're replying to - eg, putting the quoted message in itallics, putting the quoted message inside inverted commas, etc.
This method isn't always obvious to people reading the post.
Nor is it always obvious when they start their reply with >>.
The >> is to indicate the quoted message you're replying to. If you also put >> at the start of your reply, then it can appear that you've just quoted the message and not bothered replying to it.
It would be helpful to other people reading your reply if you could try and use the default quote marks and not adopt your own customised method. Thanks, DD
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 17/12/2009 at 10:26
|
|
|
|
Posters could then simply refer to 'Post No.xx above'.
There would be a problem on the odd occasion when threads are merged - you either end up with non-unique numbers, or existing numbers would change resulting in incorrect references.
EDIT: I guess that applies to links as well.
Edited by Focus {P} on 17/12/2009 at 08:14
|
I post on sites with sequential numbering. Occasional moderation screws up numbering when posts held in moderation (auto filter for banned words) and released but otherwise it works a charm.. Threads are often over 450 posts long in 4 hours...
|
Manatee - they do; have a look at the e-Bay discussion boards for example; they're full of references to specific post numbers.
I'd like to see post numbers on this board, and with it an end to finding replies inserted half way up the thread!
|
|
|
|
Madf, That wouldn't be a certain political website run by someone with the initials "MS" would it?
|
LikeDrving Once.
Oh YES
I'm madasafish there...(and everywhere.. except here)
Edited by madf on 17/12/2009 at 14:35
|
madf, in that case, congratulations are in order!
To be a sensible contributor on one forum is an achievement.
To be so on two forums is exceptional. Well done!
(I'll go back to lurking now)
|
Thanks
I run politics as a hobby: cheaper than cars...
|
|
Do what we do on DigitalSpy and that is quote the whole ruddy lot. No one makes a fuss there!
|
|
|
|
|
|
