Why quote long posts?

[Vito DeFilippo]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

There's right ways and wrong ways to quote.

Right: quoting a post which is *not* immediately preceding yours but is farther back in the thread.

Wrong: quoting the post that immediately preceded yours. That's just useless clutter.

Right: selectively quoting only the relevant portion of an otherwise long post.

Wrong: quoting an entire lengthy post just to address a small part of it... or
worse, just to say "I agree." That doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Part of the problem is my fault for not swapping the positions of the Quote button
and Reply button. Doing so will help to cut down on some of the needless quoting.

Originally Posted by Shaun Roemich

I'm with David on this one (and probably most of the rest here). I quote a fair bit but I TRY to use just the segment I'm MOST directly responding to.

As well, when I first started quoting I didn't realize all I had to do to "select" what I was quoting is hit the quote button and DELETE everything within the body of quoted text that I DIDN'T want to quote.

I think the quote ability is CRUCIAL especially on hot topics where 20 people may respond in an hour and I mean to quote someone 18 posts back for context.

I hope the wisdom of CH and the Keepers of the Forum prevails and we get a workable solution, quite possibly lashing offenders with a length of CAT5 cable.

This is weird. I just tried to quote a small section of Shaun's post, and it added yours as well, Chris from a different post! I didn't quote it all just to annoy you, I swear. I left it so you can see what happened.

[Vito DeFilippo]

Originally Posted by Shaun Roemich

I think the quote ability is CRUCIAL especially on hot topics where 20 people may respond in an hour and I mean to quote someone 18 posts back for context.

This is what I meant to do. Strangely, I went back and hit quote again, and it worked right this time. A temporary glitch?

Anyway, quoting a small section I find quite useful. I understand why you removed 'quote' on the last post, but sometimes people are responding so quickly that by the time you hit 'submit' there can be a few replies already, and your non-quoted reply in now out of context.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Vito DeFilippo

This is weird. I just tried to quote a small section of Shaun's post, and it added yours as well, Chris from a different post!

You might have inadvertantly clicked the "Multi-Quote" button, which is the smaller icon to the right down there.

Originally Posted by Vito DeFilippo

I understand why you removed 'quote' on the last post, but sometimes people are responding so quickly that by the time you hit 'submit' there can be a few replies already, and your non-quoted reply in now out of context.

Sure, but that's an exception, not the norm, and in my opinion that's a minor annoyance which is worth having the freedom from all the folks who use the Quote button just to post a reply, which has been happening around here far too often. Most people are reading the entire thread, or at least the last several posts anyway, so they'll get the context -- making it a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

[Vito DeFilippo]

I'll be darned! I just looked up the Multiquote feature, and it looks quite useful. You're right, I probably selected your post without knowing it.

Thanks again.

[Paul Shapiro]

That's the way, Chris. Now, if we can only get everyone to stop misusing apostrophes (it's for its and so forth)...

[Chris Hurd]

Confused homonyms and contractions vs. possessives are my next major battle... to / two / too, duel / dual, weather / whether, you're / your / yore, its / it's, etc. We are after all in the communication business, and spelling and grammar are the fundamental building blocks of effective communication. Onward!

[David Knaggs]

I second those sentiments, Chris!

It's about time someone stepped up to the plate concerning grammar and spelling. Perhaps you could set up a dedicated thread listing out correct usage of these points and others.

One thing (a pet peeve) which I've noticed spreading via internet boards is the misuse of the word "of" (could of, should of, would of).

Perhaps they hear something like, "I should've gone yesterday," and then think, "I should of gone yesterday," was said. Then they sit down and type it on the internet.

Incorrect: should of, could of, would of.

Correct: should have, could have, would have (or should've, could've, would've).

[Vito DeFilippo]

You could go on forever with this. My favourite (note correct spelling where I come from) is "lose" and "loose".

How many threads do we see with questions like "will I loose quality if I downconvert?"

Drives me batty.

[Don Bloom]

I like Isle and Aisle. Guys, an Isle is in the ocean. An Aisle is an open area between 2 (two not too or to) set of seats or chairs. Weddings have Aisles although the B&G might go to an Isle afterwards.

Also is it ironic or just me that we have 23 posts about quoting other posts and most of them have quotes from other posts?! :-)

Just kidding a bit here but we all need to spell check before posting. It really can help old guys like me-sometimes I really would like to help with and answer but don't because I'm not sure of the exact question because some of the spelling and some of the context in the post and I talking about folks from North America not other countries. Please lets all take a minute and check our posts to make sure they make sense (not sence)and at least MOST of the words are spelled right before posting.

Thanks from an OLD GUY-Yes I'm most lucid in the morning before my senior moments kick in ;-)

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Finally, about a year later -- I've now removed the "quote" function from the very last post of a
thread and have replaced it with "reply." Hopefully this will eliminate a lot of unnecessary quoting!

I wondered why this went away. Honestly, I disagree with it. I try to take care in only quoting the necessary point I am commenting on, and when the person before you makes a long post, it is now impossible to selectively point out a part of it and comment on it.

I understand your reasoning (I think) but I am not sure this is going to solve the issue.

[Chris Hurd]

...it is now impossible to selectively point out a part of it and comment on it.

Actually it's never been easier. Previously when you clicked "quote" to reply to the previous post, you had to prune away all but the relevant line (if you're one of the good guys who takes the time to do that, which you are). But now all you have to do is copy and paste the relevant text into your reply and add the code on either side of it -- in this case, the code is:

[ quote ] and [ /quote ] (except for the spaces in between the brackets)

So no, it's not impossible. In fact it's pretty simple to do, and it's exactly how I've quoted you in this reply.

[Daniel Bates]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

In fact it's pretty simple to do, and it's exactly how I've quoted you in this reply.

And by adding =Poster Name after the first QUOTE but before the closing bracket, you can even show who originally posted that quote (as I have done here).

[Perrone Ford]

OK, fair enough.

Thanks guys.

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Daniel Bates

And by adding =Poster Name after the first QUOTE but before the closing bracket, you can even show who originally posted that quote (as I have done here).

And by adding a semicolon and the post ID after the =Poster Name, you can even show a direct link to the original post of that quote (as I have done here).

[Daniel Bates]

I believe Mr. Browning wins the vBulletin Quote System Geek Award. :)