Alteing quotes

[rory_20_uk]

Currently if you want to quote someone you use the quote buttons. Fair enough. But this can mean that a page becomes only a few posts as people quote the item that in many cases is written above their post. Yes, we can read! I realise that I can often be guilty of this as well.

Could the default be to have the "spoiler" option so that if one is confused as to what is being referred to one can look, but otherwise the additions are truncated?

[pevergreen]

Although I can see the practical side of that, It would just cause more inconveniance in some areas than the areas it would relieve IMO.

Gameroom alone has a tremendous amount of quotes, and having to unspoil every quote...*shudders*

If I see a big long quote, I generally scroll past I unless I care what is inside.

But this can mean that a page becomes only a few posts as people quote the item that in many cases is written above their post.

Pages are done by post numbers, as opposed to length? Not understanding your full meaning here.

[Mikeus Caesar]

Or we could just adopt the imageboard system, if that's at all possible on a forum.

i.e My post is number 13564, and the next poster, 13565 wants to quote me, it would be as such:

~~~~~~~~

>>13564

Yes, your point really is great and you are the best person around here. We love you!

~~~~~~~~

Just place post numbers somewhere obvious so people notice them. Problem solved.

[KukriKhan]

This is an appeal for etiquette, yes? A consideration given the reader by the poster?

I vote: yes.

Quotes from outside sources are link-able, and should be linked, and a sample (less than half the material) provided to give the reader a idea of the context surrounding the poster's response.

Inside sources (i.e. quoting another members previous post) should only contain the bits salient to the poster's point, not the entire (sometimes) 20-paragraph essay. Especially if the poster's observation is: "I agree".

Both practices (100% copy/paste of outside stuff, and full quotation of inside stuff) are tedious in the extreme for the reader, and counter-productive to discussion. Hard copy publications use footnotes and bibliographies for this exact reason: to improve the readability of material and get quickly to the gist of what the writer wants to say.

Unless rory_20_uk means something else; in which case: "nevermind". :)

-edit-
re-reading rory's post: you propose that the quote button, instead of producing a ready-made "[ quote]--- [ /quote]" field, it instead produce : "[ spoil][ quote]---[ /quote][ /spoil]" field, by default?

[CountArach]

I for one disagree. I would find it very inconvenient to click on every spoil tag on the screen just to see which specific part of the post is being referred to, especially for those of us with Laptops. I know that in the background when quoting it is common to break quotes down into two or three line segments and address each point like that. I think it would lead to some mistakes when people think you are arguing about one thing and in fact they did not check to see what it is you are deating against.

All in all, I don't see it adding too much.

[TosaInu]

Currently if you want to quote someone you use the quote buttons. Fair enough. But this can mean that a page becomes only a few posts as people quote the item that in many cases is written above their post. Yes, we can read! I realise that I can often be guilty of this as well.

Could the default be to have the "spoiler" option so that if one is confused as to what is being referred to one can look, but otherwise the additions are truncated?

Hello,

there's the arrowbutton in the quoted text that links to the post. [QUOTE=rory_20_uk;2005275]
One could remove part or the whole of the quote and get something like this:

or this

But that's the choice of the author.

I think it's nice to have the whole post initially, as it allows you to address each point separately.

[ajaxfetish]

I don't think it would be a good idea to alter the default quote function to [spoil], for the reasons mentioned above. The problem is more on the user side and is one of etiquette. People simply shouldn't quote enormous posts in their entirety without spoiling it, especially if they have nothing meaningful to add. Unfortunately, I think the only reasonable way to address it is for other users to inform someone when they are quoting inappropriately and educate them as to how they could improve it. It would be too much to ask the mods to edit all such quotes down to the relevant bits, and isn't a big enough issue imo to merit throwing out warnings or other disciplinary actions to the offenders (though that could certainly happen on a discretionary basis if someone were really crossing the line).

Ajax

[Viking]

The current system is really the best; IMO.

[Togakure]

What I do when responding to part of a quote made by another poster is take the time to edit out the irrelevant part of the post, substituting "..." to indicate that it's been edited. It is extra work, but I take the time to do this.

I do like the way Askthepizzaguy uses spoiler tags to contain quotes, separating each response with these so the reader can easily open the spoiler to read previous dialog to which he's responding. One could also not use spoilers and simply do what I described in my first paragraph here, but using spoilers does conserve screen real estate and makes it tidier for readers who have been following the exchange closely, who remember the points which are being answered.

I vote no alteration of the current tools. There are plenty of ways to handle the issues.

[TosaInu]

What I do when responding to part of a quote made by another poster is take the time to edit out the irrelevant part of the post.

That works. I also think it helps both the author and the readers to focus.

There are plenty of ways to handle the issues.

Agree.