Quotes Rule?

[Endy0816]

Would it be possible to add a rule requiring the usage of the quote function?

 

Mostly concerned with ensuring proper and accurate attribution of previous remarks. Goes a long ways toward discussion clarity.

 

Obviously there may be software out there unable to support it and the occasional mishap in the coding, but at least an effort would have been made.

[swansont]

I would be more comfortable with insisting on the quote function if it didn't suck quite so much. Doing multiple quotes requires getting into the editor, and one typo with the quote tags can make quite a mess of things.

[Endy0816]

That kind of thing is understandable though. For those cases you can tell they at least made an effort or they have a valid reason.

 

I don't know. It is just annoying to see repeatedly and I don't like knowing that my own temper(and others) is going to get in the way of good discussion. In theory we should all be able to respond rationally regardless but this isn't realistic. We're going to end up annoyed by names being misspelled or text being hard to read.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Endy0816

[Strange]

There seems to be a correlation between how far from reality someone's pet theory is and their inability to use the quote function. I have noticed this on several forums. I haven't come up with a plausible hypothesis yet. (Not one that is printable, anyway.)

[John Cuthber]

"There seems to be a correlation between how far from reality someone's pet theory is and their inability to use the quote function."

Really? Which way does it correlate?

I often don't use it because it's clumsy.

If you can't work out who is being quoted it suggests to me that you haven't read the thread well enough to comment soundly on it anyway.

[Strange]

I often don't use it because it's clumsy.

 

I haven't noticed that. So maybe it is a correlation between how irritated I am by a poster and noticing whether they use the quote function or not ....

 

But some people do things like copy the text and make it bold or coloured. If they can do that, why not stick it into a quote box; it's just a button click. It make it much easier to distinguish what is copied and what is their text.

 

If you can't work out who is being quoted it suggests to me that you haven't read the thread well enough to comment soundly on it anyway.

 

For me it is less about who is being quoted then what is being quoted. When people make no effort to separate the previous comment from their reply it can be hard to work out what they have added.

[imatfaal]

I would be more comfortable with insisting on the quote function if it didn't suck quite so much.

 

agreed - it does seem hyper-susceptible to misinterpreting input

 

Doing multiple quotes requires getting into the editor, and one typo with the quote tags can make quite a mess of things.

 

Nope; the above done in wysiwyg mode, quote, quote, highlight&delete, highlight&delete

[swansont]

 

 

Nope; the above done in wysiwyg mode, quote, quote, highlight&delete, highlight&delete

 

Sorry, I meant multiple-part quote, i.e. breaking one quote up and responding to individual parts. It used to work just by hitting enter twice and the system would break the quote up. I've not seen it work with the latest "upgrade"

[studiot]

Are we talking about the buttons at the bottom of each post, labelled "Quote" and "Multiquote" ?

 

I agree with JohnCutherber they are so clumsy as to be an embarassment to a scientific site.

I have never been able to get them to do what I need.

 

The speech bubble icon on the toolbar is simple and works moderately well, though it has its idiosyncrasies.

[Endy0816]

There seems to be a correlation between how far from reality someone's pet theory is and their inability to use the quote function. I have noticed this on several forums. I haven't come up with a plausible hypothesis yet. (Not one that is printable, anyway.)

 

Yeah, I'm sure there is a sound psychological reason. If you take a look at some of the cloudcuckoolander pages out there you'll see the same sort of thing taken to an extreme.

 

 

If you can't work out who is being quoted it suggests to me that you haven't read the thread well enough to comment soundly on it anyway.

 

Well, it is fairly easy to search the thread. Granted you don't want to have to do that for every other line, but it isn't impossible. It is the misspelled names and whatnot that pose a problem. Easy thing to perceive as an insult to yourself or others, whether or not it was deliberate.

 

ie.

Joan Cuthbur

quoted it suggests to me that you

 

That kind of craziness.

 

Probably should mention I don't find the original "quotes" to be a problem at all. It is when the page is an eyesore and the names are messed up.

 

 

 

Sorry, I meant multiple-part quote, i.e. breaking one quote up and responding to individual parts. It used to work just by hitting enter twice and the system would break the quote up. I've not seen it work with the latest "upgrade"

 

Must have been changed at some point. All I've seen it ever do is allow you to store quotes from different posts and reply to them both at once.

 

ie. Hit MultiQuote for one post, hit MultiQuote for a second post, Click "Reply to 2 quoted post(s)".

 

I generally do Quote button by default so people know whom I'm responding to, then individual sections quoted following that(either via Quote button or copy/paste wrapped in quote tags). Sometimes switching to @OP: or @Bob: if I need to direct my response.

 

At least we're talking as a group about this, nice to see.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Endy0816

[Acme]

"There seems to be a correlation between how far from reality someone's pet theory is and their inability to use the quote function."

Really? Which way does it correlate?

I often don't use it because it's clumsy.

If you can't work out who is being quoted it suggests to me that you haven't read the thread well enough to comment soundly on it anyway.

With all due respect, I find your refusal to use the system more distracting and unhelpful than from those who don't know how. Lazy is as lazy does I suppose.

[John Cuthber]

You seem not to have attributed that quote

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1997-10-28/

[Acme]

You seem not to have attributed that quote

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1997-10-28/

No my pointed-hair friend, it was you. My point was that while the content of your posts often deserves respect, your disdain for the reader in refusing to use the quote function does not deserve respect. Your habit only adds unnecessary confusion and work for others. I can certainly understand why you replied here as you have.

 

Would it be possible to add a rule requiring the usage of the quote function?

Mostly concerned with ensuring proper and accurate attribution of previous remarks. Goes a long ways toward discussion clarity.

Obviously there may be software out there unable to support it and the occasional mishap in the coding, but at least an effort would have been made.

I agree there should be something more in the way of requirements or admonishments for not using the quote function. While using it for me requires extra effort due to IE not playing well with the current IP Board software I consider it simply a matter of due diligence. Heaven knows we have enough work to do wading through the bullshit without having to sort out who the shatters are and when-and-where they shat.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Acme

[Robittybob1]

Could someone who has mastered quoting properly give all of us a tutorial on how it is done please?

[Acme]

Could someone who has mastered quoting properly give all of us a tutorial on how it is done please?

My pleasure. >> The Quote Function - a tutorial in several parts

[Robittybob1]

My pleasure. >> The Quote Function - a tutorial in several parts

Thanks - I have saved that as a favorite and will refer to it regularly.

[John Cuthber]

Acme,

if you can cite the posts you find hard to understand, I will try to explain them for you.

Edited October 13, 2014 by John Cuthber

[iNow]

Would it be possible to add a rule requiring the usage of the quote function?

Regulations with no teeth or no enforcement mechanism tend to be feckless, at best. Given this, what punishment do you recommend be levied against those who ultimately fail to comply and submit a response without using the quote feature?

 

A ban seems excessive, as does a suspension, and I suggest both would do far more harm to the community here than any perceived good. Basically, the cost would outweigh the benefit, IMO. Bright red modnotes everywhere would be an option, but those are often ignored and IMO would be far more distracting to the flow of discussion than someone using "scare quotes" or italicized font when citing the words of others.

 

But then, what other options are left? I ask again, how can such a rule be enforced? What teeth do you recommend it be given so it has the chance to transition from well-intentioned but ignored to an actual improved site experience for readers? I'm genuinely curious.

[imatfaal]

Regulations with no teeth or no enforcement mechanism tend to be feckless, at best. Given this, what punishment do you recommend be levied against those who ultimately fail to comply and submit a response without using the quote feature?

 

A ban seems excessive, as does a suspension, and I suggest both would do far more harm to the community here than any perceived good. Basically, the cost would outweigh the benefit, IMO. Bright red modnotes everywhere would be an option, but those are often ignored and IMO would be far more distracting to the flow of discussion than someone using "scare quotes" or italicized font when citing the words of others.

 

But then, what other options are left? I ask again, how can such a rule be enforced? What teeth do you recommend it be given so it has the chance to transition from well-intentioned but ignored to an actual improved site experience for readers? I'm genuinely curious.

 

Summary execution - it's the only language these people understand.

 

Further to iNow's point - the staff are all volunteers and the time we can devote to the site is not unlimited; even if a procedure and method of censure were in place I doubt we would have resources to police it.