# What is the maximum number of characters a post may contain?



## EStjarn

Hello again.

Is there a limit on posts in terms of the number of characters they may contain?

Yes, there is. I just checked it by previewing a larger chunk of text.

As in the case of PMs, the cap is set at 10,000 characters, including spaces.


----------



## Egmont

This parameter is under the control of site administrators, but I suspect 10,000 characters is enough for most posters. One can always continue a post in a subsequent post if it's not long enough.


----------



## mkellogg

I believe the limit is 10,000 characters just the same.

If you really want to know for sure, you can try to exceed the limit and click Go Advanced or Preview Post to see if you get an error message.


----------



## TheCrociato91

Has anyone ever considered setting a limit to post length (I'm speaking mostly about the language/grammar forums proper, not much about the forums on cultural discussions at large)? No? Ok.  Maybe it's just me, then.

I personally feel that _extremely _lengthy posts:
- detract from the thread overall, dissuading from continuing to read a discussion which was potentially shaping up to be interesting;
- carry with themselves a high risk of off-topic drifts;
- while they may be on-topic, they might not prove very useful for future forum users (my impression is that people who mainly use WR as a dictionary and every now and then check the forum entries to have a better understanding of the nuances of a concept are more interested in getting an answer than going through 1,000+ word posts which might be only tangentially related to the OP question).

I'm not suggesting setting a Twitter-like limit, but maybe just reducing the current limit a tad.


----------



## wildan1

WR rule #3 is clear about post length: _Be descriptive, specific, *and succinct* in your posts, to avoid misunderstandings._

Since the WR Forum is designed to help others in an efficient way, no overlong post is really fitting in the language forums.

Extensive citations also are not allowed, for both reasons of succinctness and of copyright.
Per WR rule #4, they are limited to four sentences of prose or four lines of verse/lyrics:
_*Minor fair use excerpts (one or two)* from dictionaries are permitted.
Quotes and translations of* prose up to 4 sentences are permitted.* No audio or video files or links may be inserted without prior moderator approval.
*Song lyrics and verse may be quoted and translated, up to a maximum of 4 lines.*_

If you encounter a post that you feel does not respect the above guidelines, please click on Report and let the moderators know your concern.

wildan1, Moderator


----------



## TheCrociato91

Thank you for your response.


----------



## Loob

wildan1 said:


> WR rule #3 is clear about post length: _Be descriptive, specific, *and succinct* in your posts, to avoid misunderstandings._


That point currently appears under the side-heading _*Asking questions. *_
It would, I think, be helpful to make clear that it applies to answers, too.


----------



## DonnyB

Loob said:


> That point currently appears under the side-heading _*Asking questions. *_
> It would, I think, be helpful to make clear that it applies to answers, too.


It's trickier, I think, with answers, because a lot depends on what the question was: sometimes you could actually need to give a longish answer, so the test is really going to be whether the level of detail is relevant and necessary or not.  It's probably, too, more of an issue in some forums than others.

In my experience, posts where people waffle on inconsequentially get reported fairly readily and we then deal with them.


----------



## Loob

DonnyB said:


> It's trickier, I think, with answers


Ah, then I misunderstood Wildan's post 5: I thought he was saying that particular sentence applied to all posts.


----------



## DonnyB

Loob said:


> Ah, then I misunderstood Wildan's post 5: I thought he was saying that particular sentence applied to all posts.


I suspect that his comment "...no overlong post is really fitting in the language forums." was intended to apply to answers as well as questions. 

But going back to TheCrociato's suggestion (post #4) of having a shorter limit on post length - which looks to me like it's intended to refer to answers more than questions -  I'd certainly agree that extremely long posts tend to detract from the discussion and I've felt for a long time that in many cases people simply don't bother reading them.  But the trouble with having a lower character limit is that the worst offenders would simply circumvent it by splitting their verbose post into two.     Which in terms of detracting from the value of the thread would actually make the problem worse.


----------

