Point of Forum Etiquette

  1. Sorry if this ticks anyone off, because that's not the intent. The only intention is to bring it to everyone's awareness.

    I've been a bulletin board/forum member (as well as a moderator and administrator) on various forums for over ten years now. This board is fantastic for many reasons, but I've noticed something that I felt people might want to think about.

    Time after time, I'll read through a thread, normally a longer one, and see posts near the bottom of the thread with comments that clearly indicate the poster has not read the entire thread. They have read the original post, then post a reply. I frankly think it's common courtesy to read every post in a thread for two reasons:

    1) Each person that has posted a reply took the time to say something they feel is important and we should respect that. Good forum members will read all posts in a thread, whether they agree or not, before posting a reply. A forum is for discussion of topics as well as stating one's opinion.

    2) By skipping to the end of a thread to post a reply without reading the other comments, you can find yourself posting comments when the original question has been answered.

    What do you guys think about this? Over the top or consideration of one another?
  2. I agree, I tried to do that most of the time .If the question has been answered, sometime I didn't reply.Depends on the topic..
  3. I agree, I try to read the whole thread, but sometimes if it's too many pages I skip some.
  4. Eh. . . I too have been Moderating/Adminning for a long time and sometimes someone wants to contribute but only has a few moments to spare and can't read 3+ pages of replies, soemtimes L O N G replies as well.
    It doesn't bother me much I guess:shrugs:

    I see it pretty often and sometimes I'll comment that the person has already made up their mind or whatever . . . because the original poster will come back and say, nevermid, I returned it.
    Then there's inevitably 6 more posts after that saying "Yeas, I love it, keep it!":lol:
  5. I do that, too. But if I want to make a point about something, I check first to see if someone has already made that point. If nobody has posted it yet, then I'll write something like, "Well, I believe that . . . . " but if someone else has posted it already then I can just quote them and then say, I agree with xxxxxxx. . . . ."
  6. If it's a really long thread that I haven't read at all, I'll read the original post and see if there is something I want to contribute to the topic. If so, then I read all the posts and reply. I never post a reply to a thread if I've not read it through.

    Normally I'll check the board often enough to read threads when they are fairly new, so even if it gets long, I'm caught up on all the comments and can add to the discussion or reply to someone else's post.
  7. PP: I couldn't agree with you more. Thanks for bringing this up.

    On a related pet peeve, does anybody else mind when someone brings up a thread that's two-four-six months old, and responds to it as though its brand new? I think that some PFers are failing to look at the dates at the top of threads. They sometimes are offering advice to thread writers--about buying a bag, getting rid of a bag, etc.--but the question was posed long ago, and the issue long ago resolved!
  8. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. The one incident recently that sticks out in my mind was a poster whose friend was in the ICU and the poster had questions about visiting her. Unfortunately her friend died, but someone responded to the original question after it was posted that the friend had died. :push:
  9. OMG! YOu've noticed this happening a lot lately too!?
    UGH! I think it's new people get a little over zealous w/ the search tool:shrugs:
    But that's been bothering me a lot too. . .
    I almost wish threads were locked after a certain time, like they become archives, you can read, but not respond.
  10. I agree on both counts!
  11. I was wondering about that very thing, Swanky, about locking overly long threads. A few times I've accidentally missed a page on a VERY long thread and posted a reply, and then had to edit it accordingly.:shame:
    I don't mean to be a buzz-kill about this, but especially threads started on the purchase of new bags, probably could do with a more limited lifespan, overall. :flowers:
  12. That would be a great idea (to lock the thread that is!).

    I must admit, I'm of the *don't have much time to read through the entire thread* school ... reason being is that I'm at work and frankly, I would get into trouble if I spent that much time reading every single post. Some of the threads are pages and pages and pages long! I oftentimes find myself skipping those completely because I just don't have the time (or inclination to read every single post)! I feel like I'm missing out on some stuff, but that's the way it goes for us working slobs!
  13. I absolutely agree that threads should be closed after a certain period of time. :yes:

  14. I agree with the notion that bumping months-old threads is annoying. However, at the recent rate of over 7,000 new threads every months, and over 40k total threads, it would be a little problematic to close old threads. And there is no automatic option that i know of, either. :shrugs:
  15. This is one of my pet peeves also, but I think it happens because when a new member asks a question that has been answered in an old thread, some of the older members will direct them to the thread that is already open. Then they tend to reply to the older thread, hence the bumping.