Resolved: Unable to reply when quoting in a thread I've quoted in before

[Edric Li]

Always have been.

Posting Guidelines:

We rely heavily on community members to let us know via the report function when posts may not meet our community guidelines. After review, if moderation steps are necessary then the appropriate action(s) will be taken. Of course moderators will proactively moderate when we come across posts that do not meet the guidelines in our browsing of the forums, but there will no doubt be many posts on the site that are still up despite going against the guidelines simply because they've never been brought to our attention.

Are you saying this sudden urge to teach us Internet etiquette came after someone brought to your attention some “bad” double-posting behavior? Would you care to link to some double-posts that are considered harmful/bad to Head-Fi? Because people in this thread all double-posts for IMO legitimate/healthy reasons, I have a hard time understanding why this guideline is there to begin with.


Don’t forget, some of the greatest threads on Head-Fi started as double-posts: multiple headphones shootouts, mass measurements, personal impressions spanning years. Ever seen a thread where the OP had to reserve the second/third posts or to have a table of contents in the first post? Those are indication of the massive amount of work that the OP had and will put into this epic thread. Well, screw them because Internet etiquette.

Books and papers are written in chapters, not just paragraphs. So is any remotely thoughtful Internet discourse.

 

[CaptainFantastic]

@AxelCloris Sorry but this rule makes zero sense. You're going to kill threads that depend on some very knowledgeable, trusted users who periodically bring added value posts. Sometimes no one replies in between. People give thumbs ups, but no replies. So then when the contributor has something new to add, he has to edit a post that may be a week, two weeks, or one month old? Not sure why the inadequacy of this has to be explained.

I just ran into it myself in the MDR-R10 thread. Basically days ago I asked for advice on how to clean the old foam. As it's an old headphone with relatively few users, after that discussion was finished I thanked the respondents and was done. Now some days later I want to post some very interesting info about a new article about the headphone. Nope... can't. Double post it would be.

So I am to edit my "Thank you for telling me how to clean the old foam" post from five days ago and append there info about the new article? Really?

 

[2leftears]

@AxelCloris, it is perhaps worth pointing out that in absence of knowing why this rule exists, this enforcement may possibly lead to a situation that is of no benefit to anyone.

People will find a number of workarounds, but whilst none of them may fall foul of any rules, they may inadvertently well go against the spirit of what the admins were hoping to achieve in the first place. That could mean the efficacy of Head-Fi as a headphone forum will suffer (significantly), whilst neither the members, nor the sponsors, nor the admins see any benefit from this change.

EDIT: as I hinted at in an earlier post, I can easily foresee a situation where, if members can't add a post to an exiting thread, they will simply start a new thread just for that post, which will at least flag it as new content. So instead of double posts, you would end up with a proliferation of threads instead.

Don’t forget, some of the greatest threads on Head-Fi started as double-posts: multiple headphones shootouts, mass measurements, personal impressions spanning years. Ever seen a thread where the OP had to reserve the second/third posts or to have a table of contents in the first post? Those are indication of the massive amount of work that the OP had and will put into this epic thread. Well, screw them because Internet etiquette.

Books and papers are written in chapters, not just paragraphs. So is any remotely thoughtful Internet discourse.

I can confirm that maintaining my index post has become a major headache. Index entries are useful if they link to individual posts, but it is impossible with an ever expanding last post that collates all sorts of unrelated material. It then becomes a near useless index link along the lines of: "this will get you to the right post, but you still may need to scroll 20 or 30 screens down to find what you are after..."

 

[AstronomerXI]

@AxelCloris, it is perhaps worth pointing out that in absence of knowing why this rule exists, this enforcement may possibly lead to a situation that is of no benefit to anyone.

People will find a number of workarounds, but whilst none of them may fall foul of any rules, they may inadvertently well go against the spirit of what the admins were hoping to achieve in the first place. That could mean the efficacy of Head-Fi as a headphone forum will suffer (significantly), whilst neither the members, nor the sponsors, nor the admins see any benefit from this change.

...or people will just create a second (or more) account in order to bypass this rule.

 

[2leftears]

...or people will just create a second (or more) account in order to bypass this rule.

Tempting as that may seem, I would strongly advise against that; there is a hard rule against that (not a 'guideline').

As I understand it that would be an immediate ban from the forum. Granted, it is easy to create a second account without that being easily detectable, but the constant alternating posts between two users, one of whom's account was created shortly after this enforcement change, would look suspicious...

 

[AstronomerXI]

Tempting as that may seem, I would strongly advise against that; there is a hard rule against that (not a 'guideline').

As I understand it that would be an immediate ban from the forum. Granted, it is easy to create a second account without that being easily detectable, but the constant alternating posts between two users, one of whom's account was created shortly after this enforcement change, would look suspicious...

I'm not saying that I would (I have no reason to), but I can see where, with some of the examples people have posted above where the rule implementation is causing problems and aggravation, that logically might lead some people.

 

[Whazzzup]

In the meta verse conflicting timelines are catastrophic. These are basic precautionary measures for everyone’s safety

 

[AstronomerXI]

In the meta verse conflicting timelines are catastrophic. These are basic precautionary measures for everyone’s safety

What does that even mean in context?

 

[Whazzzup]

Watch “flash “ or a plethora of other meta verse and timeline shows or movies to understand the basic principles that allow the universe to proceed smoothly. By duplicate posting you have countervailed the basic principles of our existence.

 

[CaptainFantastic]

Except these are not "duplicate" posts. They are merely consecutive posts, most of the time not related. Nothing duplicate about them if the content is not the same.

 

[Whazzzup]

Except these are not "duplicate" posts. They are merely consecutive posts, most of the time not related. Nothing duplicate about them if the content is not the same.

In the meta verse duplicate and consecutive timelines must never touch. It’s for your protection and the existence of everything you know

 

[2leftears]

In the meta verse conflicting timelines are catastrophic. These are basic precautionary measures for everyone’s safety

In the meta verse duplicate and consecutive timelines must never touch. It’s for your protection and the existence of everything you know

There are literally hundreds of Head-Fi threads where double posting has been going on for yonks. There must be tens of thousands of double post examples on Head-Fi already. So I doubt we are about to blow up the existence of everything we know, @Whazzzup

Is strongly suspect it is a sponsor post visibility issue, and I think there are more amenable ways of addressing that. This feels like an unnecessary sledgehammer approach.

 

[BlakeT]

I agree with the concerns and complaints listed above.

If you make it too hard to post here, then people will just stop visiting this site altogether.

 

[CaptainFantastic]

I think more than anything this shows that whoever enabled this "feature" has a very reduced understanding of the forums. He may have an enormous amount of moderating knowledge, etc., but utterly lacks the practical experience of a long time user enjoying the forums as part of the hobby.

But it looks like the Head-fi Gods have moved on. We are speaking to a wall now.

 

[rids57]

I think more than anything this shows that whoever enabled this "feature" has a very reduced understanding of the forums. He may have an enormous amount of moderating knowledge, etc., but utterly lacks the practical experience of a long time user enjoying the forums as part of the hobby.

But it looks like the Head-fi Gods have moved on. We are speaking to a wall now.

We always were