ChrisGreaves wrote: ↑15 Aug 2020, 11:02
... a system whereby the initiator of a long thread might accept responsibility to build a single post with one, or two, levels:-
Proposal to Summarize Long Threads
I am summarizing my replies to posts in this thread to date as I did in
this post. I see this as a way of reducing the number of posts in a thread and bringing the status of the thread to a convergent point. Just another way of summarizing data.
Chris> … the initiator of a long thread might accept responsibility to build a single post with one, or two, levels. I’d appreciate hearing comments and suggestions as to how we might adopt this suggestion in a semi-formal manner.
In my post I suggested “accept responsibility”, with no compulsion. I did ask for comments and suggestions and am grateful for these. As well I suggested a semi-formal manner; that is, that there might be a recommended structure (of summaries) for anyone inclined to generate a summary,.
Argus> Good luck with that; some, ahem, can't decide which solution to use, if any. [Before reading past the first few sentences] OK, when you have read the 9 pages and done what you propose above. I think the lounge is too small for this level of sophistication.
Quite so. In many a long thread there are branches of thought, some profitable, some not so much. Each new reader coming across the thread must travel each branch and discover it to be (possibly) a dead-end or fruitless path. As for level of sophistication, if it was
good enough for Rudi, it’s good enough for me,
HansV> I agree with Argus - this is not going to happen.
But it has happened in the past. Here I am suggesting that a few guidelines might help users in summarizing threads.
jstevens (John)> Out of curiosity, which thread has the most pages?
Good question, and “pages” or “posts” or even “screens” all serve as valid units of measurement, but they do not eliminate the “fluff” in all its various forms. Whether a thread is 50% images (blows up the number of pages) or 50% hijacking banter (blows up the number of posts), or what, a one-post summary of the technique that seems to be generally acceptable as a solution is the best bet.
HansV> @jstevens: the topic (thread) with the highest number of replies is Xmas Word Association Game from 202, with 555 replies. #2 is Best FREE Software (Used and Rated by Loungers) with 327 replies. I wouldn't like to summarize either!
Me either! But there again, providing a single post that short-circuits all the fluff/dead-ends is surely a valuable post, and whether we/I like it or not, it is surely valuable work.
John Gray> Chris: surely the solution is for you to write many fewer words...? (I always think that you are unnecessarily prolix!)
Fewer words would help, but then I sometimes add detail for the future reader, or novice, who may not yet be up on the jargon. I was once mystified by RC and IMNSHO.. And yes, I am prolix, and do write “a lot”, but I love writing, and it’s hard being a lonely old man living on top of a hill on a wind-swept peninsula, miles from civilization and … (see what I mean?!!)
Doc.AElstein (Alan)> I think your idea Chris is basically sound. But my 2 cents is that the amount of Threads appropriate for such treatment is relatively too small to warrant a formal or even semi formal approach. I think maybe the odd occasion that something like you suggest could be useful to do, somebody doing it without a formal set of guidelines on doing it is OK. Down with the short message mentality and post size limit I say :) . Just my opinion ;) , that’s all :)
It is not the amount/number of threads that matters. When I/we come across a long thread, multiple pages, that we need to wade through to find the nugget, why not then post the nugget as a summary? It should save the next person(s) wading through the mire. And yes, doing it without guidelines is OK (and legal and admirable), but if someone does suggest a guideline, why not work with that existing standard? I must confess that some longer comments give me food for thought and often enough remind me that I am human.
Cheers
Chris