09-20-2009, 02:02 PM
I hope this doesn't cause offense.
Rob made a plea to end the bloated quote madness on StillHope's topic on rental cars. (I will forego quoting him; it's on page 2.) This is something that's been bugging me for awhile now, and I don't want to take her topic off OT. This is a widespread problem, not due to one person.
A quote should have a real purpose; it should facilitate conversation, not impede. Some of these quotes contain two or three prior quotes in them. People end up quoting themselves and there are double or triple siglines. What a mess, half a screen of space so someone can make a one line comment, tagged with yet another sigline and maybe a blog link.
Example of a one line post and one line reply, bloated and unreadable:
_____________________________________________________________
To quote a sigline, when you are not commenting on it, is total waste of space.
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.
blog: www.ihaveablognow.com
______________________________________________________________
I don't see your point.
It is always a silly thing to give advice, but to give good advice is fatal.
blog: www.visitmyblogsinsteadmygooglerankingsslipped.com
_______________________________________________________________
That's a lot of space to say very little. Can we try to economize? Topics end up going multi-page quickly. Punaweb doesn't have a "jump to first unread post" feature, so multiple page topics get clunky.
As a writer, you should ensure that your post makes visual sense at a glance. If an already quoted bit really needs a response, then quote it separately.
The Reply with Quote option is not your friend. If you must use this function, delete the "quote ... originally posted by" verbiage. Personally I quote by copying what I want to quote from a post above me. Then I either hit the Quote code button or type in my own quote and unquote tags. Bonus, I have to think about what is worth selecting.
My thoughts on when, how, and what to quote:
The art of quoting involves pulling out the most pertinent bit of wording. Less is more. Punaweb quotes of prior posts are typically to provide point of reference. You want to show to whom you are responding and to what in particular. If you want to show WHO, you don't need to quote anything; just say their name, simple.
if you aren't arguing with the person, a simple paraphrase is better than a quote. In a conversation, do you repeat everything the person said in order to say "yeah, me too"?
If you are debating, then quoting is proper so that you don't replace someone's words with your interpretation. While it's not fair to quote a bit out of context to make the other person look bad, you should cull out the relevant bit and keep only enough context to give a fair representation. Then respond by drawing attention to specific words or phrases.
Quotes aren't a tool for refreshing the reader on what was said by copying it over. You should trust the reader to stay abreast of the topic. If the original post has been buried by new comments, you may need to refresh, but rarely would need to quote a big chunk.
If you must quote, it helps to preview your post, and cut out the big white spaces. As a rule of thumb, the content you add in a new post should visually outweigh any quoted content. The reader is trying to figure out what you are ADDING. What is he/she supposed to be getting out of this big long quote? Should it be skipped, or is it quoted to make a point, and if so, what is that point?
If you slap a Reply with Quote up there without a guide, you confuse your reader, plus your own comment underneath risks looking pathetically slight in comparison.
____________
Thanks everyone who manages to read this to the end. I could have thrown in some quotes, but I'm wordy enough without the extra baggage. [
]
Discussion desired, but please don't hit Reply with Quote! [:p]
CUT the BLOAT
Streamline that QUOTE! [
]
ed. to randomly insert and delete more white spaces.
Rob made a plea to end the bloated quote madness on StillHope's topic on rental cars. (I will forego quoting him; it's on page 2.) This is something that's been bugging me for awhile now, and I don't want to take her topic off OT. This is a widespread problem, not due to one person.
A quote should have a real purpose; it should facilitate conversation, not impede. Some of these quotes contain two or three prior quotes in them. People end up quoting themselves and there are double or triple siglines. What a mess, half a screen of space so someone can make a one line comment, tagged with yet another sigline and maybe a blog link.
Example of a one line post and one line reply, bloated and unreadable:
_____________________________________________________________
To quote a sigline, when you are not commenting on it, is total waste of space.
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.
blog: www.ihaveablognow.com
______________________________________________________________
quote:
To quote a sigline, when you are not commenting on it, is total waste of space.
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.
blog: www.ihaveablognow.com
I don't see your point.
It is always a silly thing to give advice, but to give good advice is fatal.
blog: www.visitmyblogsinsteadmygooglerankingsslipped.com
_______________________________________________________________
That's a lot of space to say very little. Can we try to economize? Topics end up going multi-page quickly. Punaweb doesn't have a "jump to first unread post" feature, so multiple page topics get clunky.
As a writer, you should ensure that your post makes visual sense at a glance. If an already quoted bit really needs a response, then quote it separately.
The Reply with Quote option is not your friend. If you must use this function, delete the "quote ... originally posted by" verbiage. Personally I quote by copying what I want to quote from a post above me. Then I either hit the Quote code button or type in my own quote and unquote tags. Bonus, I have to think about what is worth selecting.
My thoughts on when, how, and what to quote:
The art of quoting involves pulling out the most pertinent bit of wording. Less is more. Punaweb quotes of prior posts are typically to provide point of reference. You want to show to whom you are responding and to what in particular. If you want to show WHO, you don't need to quote anything; just say their name, simple.
if you aren't arguing with the person, a simple paraphrase is better than a quote. In a conversation, do you repeat everything the person said in order to say "yeah, me too"?
If you are debating, then quoting is proper so that you don't replace someone's words with your interpretation. While it's not fair to quote a bit out of context to make the other person look bad, you should cull out the relevant bit and keep only enough context to give a fair representation. Then respond by drawing attention to specific words or phrases.
Quotes aren't a tool for refreshing the reader on what was said by copying it over. You should trust the reader to stay abreast of the topic. If the original post has been buried by new comments, you may need to refresh, but rarely would need to quote a big chunk.
If you must quote, it helps to preview your post, and cut out the big white spaces. As a rule of thumb, the content you add in a new post should visually outweigh any quoted content. The reader is trying to figure out what you are ADDING. What is he/she supposed to be getting out of this big long quote? Should it be skipped, or is it quoted to make a point, and if so, what is that point?
If you slap a Reply with Quote up there without a guide, you confuse your reader, plus your own comment underneath risks looking pathetically slight in comparison.
____________
Thanks everyone who manages to read this to the end. I could have thrown in some quotes, but I'm wordy enough without the extra baggage. [
] Discussion desired, but please don't hit Reply with Quote! [:p]
CUT the BLOAT
Streamline that QUOTE! [
]ed. to randomly insert and delete more white spaces.
