# Less than 10 characters



## Cracker Jack

I was really surprised when I received this prompt after trying to submit a post.  It stated that the post contained less than 10 characters.  In fact I just submitted a direct translations, i.e. word-for-word.  But just the same, they had more than 10 characters but less than 10 words.  Is this a new rule?  I am not aware of this.  I checked out the Forum Rules but I couldn't find any entry that pertains to this.

I wonder why a prescribed number of words must be observed in posting.  I thought that a direct translation would save time.  It's very pratical and time-saving. It happened to me several times today.  So I was forced to do some ''ad-libbing'' in order to lengthen the post.

Can someone please explain. Thanks.


----------



## mickaël

Good morning,


Me, sometimes I have this problem when I want to edit one of my post. I can't cause I add less than 10 characters.


----------



## belén

Cracker, I am not aware of the "10 words rule" at all, I know that we have the "10 characters rule" in order to avoid answers such as "yes" or "no"

I will make some tests and get back to you,

Belén

Edit:Test done, I haven't got any problems unless I post less than ten characters. Please check if your post was really longer than 10 and let us know if it happens again..

Thanks


----------



## panjandrum

Cracker Jack said:
			
		

> I was really surprised when I received this prompt after trying to submit a post. It stated that the post contained less than 10 characters. In fact I just submitted a direct translations, i.e. word-for-word. But just the same, they had more than 10 characters but less than 10 words. Is this a new rule? I am not aware of this. I checked out the Forum Rules but I couldn't find any entry that pertains to this.
> 
> I wonder why a prescribed number of words must be observed in posting. I thought that a direct translation would save time. It's very pratical and time-saving. It happened to me several times today. So I was forced to do some ''ad-libbing'' in order to lengthen the post.
> Blue letters added inside the quoted text box.
> 
> Can someone please explain. Thanks.


The goblin that counts the letters in your post does not count anything that you insert inside a quoted text box.

So, it counts all the red letters in this post, but not the blue letters.


----------



## maxiogee

Posters frequently ask things such as "Can I say "dshgvj;dfaghvad?" to which the best answer is "Yes." - but the goblin insists that I pad out the answer to 10 chars!
This doesn't arise when the answer is "No." as one needs to explain why something is wrong.


----------



## Rayines

> When necessary, I use a sort of trick. Guess which one? (Look attentively)


Yes.......................


----------



## panjandrum

Rayines said:
			
		

> Yes.......................


I would struggle to be quite so concise 
Isn't there always an element of uncertainty or a but?


----------



## timpeac

panjandrum said:
			
		

> I would struggle to be quite so concise
> Isn't there always an element of uncertainty or a but?


No.


----------



## danielfranco

Heisenberg showed us that a definite yes or no is completely out of the question...
Or did he?
Regardless, if the ten-character censorship puts a crimp on your lifestyle, just delete the 





> indicator-thingy at the beginning and end of the quote and it'll show as regular text. I do that sometimes. Then again, I often like to type so much that I hardly ever quote other people... Why bother, when I can re-type the whole thing in my own words and sound like I really have something to say when all I'm really doing is agreeing with somebody else? But that's just me, the kind of guy that could never just say yes or no, and never you mind Heisenberg and his friends, what did they know anyway? Thank you and good luck and enjoy the forums.


----------



## timpeac

danielfranco said:
			
		

> Heisenberg showed us that a definite yes or no is completely out of the question...
> Or did he?


 
Don't know about that - but can't the following question be fully answered by "yes"?

Q Is this sentence fully answered by "yes"?

I'm not saying that the answer necessarily is "yes", simply that "yes" is a complete answer in itself.


----------



## Rayines

panjandrum said:
			
		

> I would struggle to be quite so concise
> Isn't there always an element of uncertainty or a but?


Yes, panj....It happened to me only once, or twice (no element of uncertainty, I mean).


----------



## maxiogee

danielfranco said:
			
		

> Regardless, if the ten-character censorship puts a crimp on your lifestyle, just delete the indicator-thingy at the beginning and end of the quote and it'll show as regular text.



The problem with doing that is that the text you quote can be made, by a later quote, to look like your words - and there are times when you wouldn't want that to happen.




			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> No


How'd you do that?


----------



## la reine victoria

I thought I knew the answer but I tried it and I don't.  


Must be a Mod's perk.  Come on Tim, be a sport.

Please don't reply with "If I could, I would."




LRV


----------



## geve

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> Must be a Mod's perk.


No!


----------



## panjandrum

> Must be a Mod's perk.


----------



## geve

> Oh. You think?


----------



## Jana337

Geve and Jana said:
			
		

> Oh. You think?  No, it isn't.


----------



## maxiogee

Any clues?


----------



## geve

So, is this a new feature?
I _think_ I got this "less than 10 characters" message before, when trying to post a message where I answered directly in a quoted text.
Or is just for posts that contain less than 10 characters, including the quoted parts?


----------



## maxiogee

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Any clues?


----------



## maxiogee

How'd I do that?


----------



## Jana337

Ve lo spiegherò ragazzi, ma in italiano affinché non sia tanto facile per voi. 

Se si compone il messaggio nella finestra per la risposta rapida, si può postare senza scrivere 10 lettere. Se invece si va nel modo avanzato, il software non vi lascia inviare il post.

Se ci sono altri modi di fare, ditecelo per favore. 

Jana


----------



## maxiogee

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Ve lo spiegherò ragazzi, ma in italiano affinché non sia tanto facile per voi.
> 
> Se si compone il messaggio nella finestra per la risposta rapida, si può postare senza scrivere 10 lettere. Se invece si va nel modo avanzato, il software non vi lascia inviare il post.
> 
> Se ci sono altri modi di fare, ditecelo per favore.
> 
> Jana


okay


----------



## geve

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Ve lo spiegherò ragazzi, ma in italiano affinché non sia tanto facile per voi.
> 
> Se si compone il messaggio nella finestra per la risposta rapida, si può postare senza scrivere 10 lettere. Se invece si va nel modo avanzato, il software non vi lascia inviare il post.
> 
> Se ci sono altri modi di fare, ditecelo per favore.
> 
> Jana


Ok, here's the (very bad) translation I got for this
_Je vous l'expliquerai des garçons, mais en italien pour qu'il ne soit pas très facile pour vous. Si on compose le message dans la fenêtre pour la répondue rapide, on peut poster sans écrire 10 lettres. Si par contre on va dans la mode avancée, le software il ne vous laisse pas envoyer le post. S'il y a autres modalités de faire, dites le nous s'il vous plait._
And now from French to English (I could do directly from Italian to English, but it's more fun this way):
_I will explain it to you boys, but in Italian so that it is not very easy for you. If one composes the message in the window for the answered fast one, one can poster without writing 10 letters. So on the other hand one goes in the advanced fashion, the software it does not let to you send the post. If there are other methods to do, known as us please._
This is poetry.

I still don't understand (not because of the poor automatic translation!): I _always_ use the advanced 'fashion'! And if you quote a message, you automatically "go advanced", don't you?
Does that mean that the quoted parts do count after all?


----------



## Jana337

You must have a different method, then. The software won't let me submit a post with less than 10 characters in the advanced mode.

You can quote even in the simplified editor under the last post, but manually and not with the edit button.

Jana

P.S: How can one of our most senior members trust automatic translations?


----------



## Alundra

Jana said:
			
		

> The software won't let me submit a post with less than 10 characters in the advanced mode


 
A mí tampoco.


----------



## Jana337

[s][/s ]

Come on, Alundra!  It is good that this feature exists; it prevents people from posting curt one-word replies. 

Jana


----------



## geve

Jana337 said:
			
		

> You must have a different method, then. The software won't let me submit a post with less than 10 characters in the advanced mode.
> 
> You can quote even in the simplified editor under the last post, but manually and not with the edit button.
> 
> Jana
> 
> P.S: How can one of our most senior members trust automatic translations?


(You mean the quote button, right?)

Oh no, I don't have a special trick to fool the software! It won't let me post messages that are less than 10 characters either - but it _will_ let me post a message where all characters are in a quoted text box, as I did in my post #16; which doesn't fit with Panj's explanation in post #4.


I don't trust them. Of course I had perfectly understood the Italian and didn't need a translation, I only posted it for the benefit of future readers


----------



## Alundra

Jana337 said:
			
		

> [s][/s ]
> 
> Come on, Alundra!  It is good that this feature exists; it prevents people from posting curt one-word replies.
> 
> Jana


----------



## Jana337

> Yes, I meant quote. Let's see what happens now.


----------



## la reine victoria

maxiogee said:
			
		

> How'd I do that?


 







LRV


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

Is the C&S forum becoming the test forum? Or better, the trick forum? 
Just a question about quoting: why when replying to a post where there is already a quote inside, (replying with the "quote" link of course) you don't get the quote of the previous poster? Is it to avoid too long embedded quotes?


----------



## Philippa

KaRiNe_Fr said:
			
		

> Just a question about quoting: why when replying to a post where there is already a quote inside, (replying with the "quote" link of course) you don't get the quote of the previous poster? Is it to avoid too long embedded quotes?


Abracadabra!! As if by magic, here's a solution....(from Jana, a member of the C and S magic circle!!  )
quoting the quotes...
P


----------



## Jana337

Philippa said:
			
		

> Abracadabra!! As if by magic, here's a solution....(from Jana, a member of the C and S magic circle!!  )
> quoting the quotes...
> P


I am always glad to be quoted  but how does my reply there relate to Karine's question? 

Karine is right; it is mainly to avoid long and unwieldy quotes because many people are too lazy to quote judiciously. It can be easily overridden, however, if you manually copy a previous quote and embed it into a new one.

Jana


----------



## Philippa

Jana337 said:
			
		

> I am always glad to be quoted  but how does my reply there relate to Karine's question?


Okay, I agree really!!
Your reply is the solution. And Cuchu and Panj 's answers there refer to the long, annoying, unwieldy results if we did have embedded quotes.


----------



## cuchuflete

For this Mac/firefox configuration, I have to use at least ten characters even in Quick Reply mode.  Drat.


----------



## maxiogee

You need to set your Mac to "Big Game Hunter" mode, and go on safari!


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks Tony,
I'll try it with the other tyre-kickers and report back to the big bwana.
Bad trade if it works, as safaris involve slow slogging.

Update, on safari, results were that big game, 10 point bucks and such,
were still called for with either a quick shot or a citation for attempted speeding.
Must be something in the air here.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Update, on safari, results were that big game, 10 point bucks and such,
> were still called for with either a quick shot or a citation for attempted speeding.
> Must be something in the air here.



Must


----------



## Cracker Jack

Thank you very much for all your replies.  I never thought that this thread would be deluged with responses.  Much as I would have wanted to post a response, I wasn't able to because of this problem.  In fact, even with three to four paragraph reply, the same prompt comes out.

However, I ''outsmarted'' the system.  I guess, there is nothing wrong with WR.  All of you were able to post even a yes alone, no alone replies.  I figured out that it had something to do with mine.

So what I did was copy-paste as somebody suggested (was it cuchuflete or panj???) the text and lo and behold, it got posted.  But the first copy and paste was unsuccessful.  It was only after second or third try that I got it published.


----------



## panjandrum

Cracker Jack said:
			
		

> Thank you very much for all your replies. I never thought that this thread would be deluged with responses. Much as I would have wanted to post a response, I wasn't able to because of this problem. In fact, even with three to four paragraph reply, the same prompt comes out.
> 
> However, I ''outsmarted'' the system. I guess, there is nothing wrong with WR. All of you were able to post even a yes alone, no alone replies. I figured out that it had something to do with mine.
> 
> So what I did was copy-paste as somebody suggested (was it cuchuflete or panj???) the text and lo and behold, it got posted. But the first copy and paste was unsuccessful. It was only after second or third try that I got it published.


1


----------



## panjandrum

My last post on this thread involved no trick.
I clicked on quote, typed 1 and clicked on submit.

That surprised me.
I'm sure it didn't used to work like that?


----------



## geve

That's what I was wondering in my posts 19 & 28 too... I still don't understand this part!
Maybe the feature was changed with the new server?


----------



## Joelline

Hint:  highlight the word yes in Rayies post *and *the "white space" after it!


----------



## geve

Joelline said:
			
		

> Hint: highlight the word yes in Rayies post *and *the "white space" after it!


Yes, Joelline, I've read enough maxiogee posts to be able to spot invisible ink now  

But there were no such trick involved in posts 8, 14-17, 20, 23, 29, 30, 31, 39, 41...


----------



## cuchuflete

geve said:
			
		

> Yes, Joelline, I've read enough maxiogee posts to be able to spot invisible ink now
> 
> But there were no such trick involved in posts 8, 14-17, 20, 23, 29, 30, 31, 39, 41...



odd


----------



## cuchuflete

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> odd


This didn't work for me last week, but is working now.

It may be a function of the position of the moon, the mood of the Mac, or that I cleared cache and cookies.


----------



## lsp

geve said:
			
		

> Yes, Joelline, I've read enough maxiogee posts to be able to spot invisible ink now
> 
> But there were no such trick involved in posts 8, 14-17, 20, 23, 29, 30, 31, 39, 41...


Me, too, and I feel like a jerk. I've been following the thread, hoping to catch on, and I haven't. Can one of you geniuses spell it out for me? Pretty please!


----------



## Elisa68

lsp said:
			
		

> Me, too, and I feel like a jerk. I've been following the thread, hoping to catch on, and I haven't. Can one of you geniuses spell it out for me? Pretty please!


----------



## Elisa68

Lsp, I have just quoted your post and sent it and the above is the result...


----------



## Moogey

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Ve lo spiegherò ragazzi, ma in italiano affinché non sia tanto facile per voi.
> 
> Se si compone il messaggio nella finestra per la risposta rapida, si può postare senza scrivere 10 lettere. Se invece si va nel modo avanzato, il software non vi lascia inviare il post.
> 
> Se ci sono altri modi di fare, ditecelo per favore.
> 
> Jana



Usually when there are this many posts in a topic I tend to skip over 3 or 4 at a time because my brain doesn't work well so if this was already well-translated or you all have the message already sorry 

Jana said:

I'll explain it to you boys, but in Italian so that it's not so easy for you.

If you send a message in the quick-reply box, you can post without writing 10 letters. If you use the advanced mode, won't let you send the post.

If there are other ways to do this, tell us please.

(Jana, avrei detto "Se ci *siano* altri modi *da* far*lo*, ditecelo" ma hai piu' esperienza)

-M


----------



## lsp

Elisa68 said:
			
		

> Lsp, I have just quoted your post and sent it and the above is the result...


 OK, smarty-pants, now *how* did you do it?   If you used the quick reply like Moogey says, you'd have had to write in the quote tags, which takes the "quick" out of "quick reply." Why am I not getting this!?!


----------



## Rayines

lsp said:
			
		

> OK, smarty-pants, now *how* did you do it?  If you used the quick reply like Moogey says, you'd have had to write in the quote tags, which takes the "quick" out of "quick reply." Why am I not getting this!?!


Just try the "quote" that is below on the right.


----------



## maxiogee

lsp said:
			
		

> OK, smarty-pants, now *how* did you do it?   If you used the quick reply like Moogey says, you'd have had to write in the quote tags, which takes the "quick" out of "quick reply." Why am I not getting this!?!




No. The only text quoted was that written in the post by lsp, not lsp's quote from geve.


----------



## Elisa68

Lsp, I clicked the "quote" that is below on the right, and that's it, giuro!


----------



## lsp

Elisa68 said:
			
		

> Lsp, I clicked the "quote" that is below on the right, and that's it, giuro!


Maybe it's a MAC thing, huh, Cuchu? 

p.s. I get the whole invisible space thing, BTW, I've been doing that all along. Elisa's didn't have any. That's the one I'm interested in now.  Maxiogee, you're on a MAC, too, right?


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

My assumption is those who can't avoid the "Less than 10 characters" control have another javascript code on their cache (whether on their computer cache or on their proxy cache).
The others have another one (the new one or the older one). Since Mike new installation on the new server, some settings must have been forgotten (or kept to its default value) like this features. Or maybe it was on purpose...
Into this global script of the WR forum site (vbulletin_global.js) one can see there is a variable named 'ignorequotechars' (set to false), maybe before the new server this variable was set to true?
Just an assumption as I didn't follow this pseudo-analysis further.


----------



## lsp

> Can someone please explain. Thanks.


----------



## lsp

Hello!!

I'm slow but I'm cute.


----------



## maxiogee

lsp said:
			
		

> Maybe it's a MAC thing, huh, Cuchu?
> 
> p.s. I get the whole invisible space thing, BTW, I've been doing that all along.. Elisa's didn't have any. That's the one I"m interesting in now.  Maxiogee, you're on a MAC, too, right?


----------



## dec-sev

Very instructive thread in terms of how to evade the rule  What interests me is *why* this rule has originated at all and to what purpose.


----------



## Flaminius

Hi *dec-sev*,

I believe that in order to write up a post a post with "a respectful, helpful and cordial tone" (WR Mission Statement II), you definitely need more than 10 characters.

Posts like "I agree", "You bet", "Nope" or a simple "" are unhelpful and curt.  If I am the thread opener in the thread where such a reply is given, I'd be interested in what material the poster can provide to support their agreement/disagreement. Even if agreement/disagreement is the only thing I need to know, I still would like the answer to have a human touch; with a little "have a nice day", signature at the end or a quote that clarifies what the agreement/disagreement is given to.  I don't think this is too tall an order for a forum for language lovers.

Another practical purpose of this restriction would be to prevent posters from beefing up their post counts by tangential grunts and nods such as illustrated above.


----------



## dec-sev

Thank you for your reply, Flaminius.


Flaminius said:


> I believe that in order to write up a post a post with "a respectful, helpful and cordial tone" (WR Mission Statement II), you definitely need more than 10 characters.


My problem started when I wanted to say _gracias_ in Spanish forum. I was forced  to write _muchas gracias_ but I don’t see anything disrespectful in just _thank you_.



> Posts like "I agree", "You bet", "Nope" or a simple "" are unhelpful and curt.


But you can’t call a person to be unhelpful just because he is laconic. I don’t see anything curt nor uncordial in "I agree". And you’ll never force a person to be cordial, helpful, ect. by imposing such rules. 


> If I am the thread opener in the thread where such a reply is given, I'd be interested in what material the poster can provide to support their agreement/disagreement.


It depends on the situation. Suppose it’s not a beginning of the thread but  the second page of it and all possible context is given, and I need just yes or no answer. 


> Even if agreement/disagreement is the only thing I need to know, I still would like the answer to have a human touch; with a little "have a nice day",...


 Why there is no option for those who don’t need this human touch? There are moderators who delete what they think does not belong to the forum. Why not to consider what is respectful and what is disrespectful case by case?


> Another practical purpose of this restriction would be to prevent posters from beefing up their post counts by tangential grunts and nods such as illustrated above.


Sorry, but in my opinion it’s ridiculous. If I wanted to beef up my post counts I would start a thread connected with sex. This topic usually attracts a lot of responses 
In short, Obama has taken office; time to change the policy  
PS. You’ll laugh at me, but my first thought was that it was due to a technical reason. Something like a thread can be a thread when it consists of a certain amount of megabites and these megabites are reached by typing these 10 letters, or a sort of. As I see the problem is, so to say, human, rather then scientific


----------



## danielfranco

Wow… I guess I'm just cyber-paranoid, but I thought the 10 letter rule was to avoid spamming from automated replies.

I never considered it was due to "niceness first".



D


----------



## dec-sev

Hello everyone. 
Nearly a year has passed since the last post and I'd like to know if someting in the forum  management's attitude towards the matter has changed since then and if you (people responsilbe for establishing the rules consider a possibility to abolish it)
_In my opinion_ what Flaminius wrote 


> Posts like "I agree", "You bet", "Nope" or a simple "" are unhelpful and curt.


 doesn't hold water. A fresh example is post No 31 here. It's helpful enough and I don't think that mirx meant to be curt. 


> Another practical purpose of this restriction would be to prevent posters from beefing up their post counts by tangential grunts and nods such as illustrated above.


We have the Culture Cafe now. The same sex couples thread there is on the page 8 now if I'm not mistaken. Who wants to beef up their post counts may just subscribe to the thread or post there and he will achieve his goal.
So my question. Has the time come to abolish the rule?
I have an idea why the rule hasn't been abolished yet. After so many debates about the matter and so many arguments in favour of the rule that abolishing it now would be like Tony Blair's admitting that invading Iraq was the wrong decision 
I know the saying "When in Rome do as Romans do" as well as the WR rule which runs "Use of these forums and your speech in these forums is not a right. It is a privilege granted you by the WR administrator", but I hope that my last remark will not be taken as offense, but as what we during the _perestoika_ called "constructive criticism".


----------



## Loob

I always thought the rule existed for the reason given in Daniel's post 64 - which seems to me to be both fair and sensible.


----------



## panjandrum

dec-sev said:


> ...
> I have an idea why the rule hasn't been abolished yet. After so many debates about the matter and so many arguments in favour of the rule that abolishing it now would be like Tony Blair's admitting that invading Iraq was the wrong decision
> ...


I don't know for sure, but I suggest two possible answers.
1. It's not within the control of WordReference.
2. Changing it would require some effort.  The effort required is disproportionate to the size of the problem.
3. Nobody can be bothered to look for a way to change it.


----------



## dec-sev

panjandrum said:


> 2. Changing it would require some effort.  The effort required is disproportionate to the size of the problem.
> 3. Nobody can be bothered to look for a way to change it.


Are you referring to the Blair´s point of view or to the 10 letter rule?  I guess both 



Flaminius said:


> I believe that in order to write up a post a post with "a respectful, helpful and cordial tone" (WR Mission Statement II), you definitely need more than 10 characters.


@ panjandrum and Loob:
Do you share this belief? You help me when I ask someting on the English Only and I want to be sure that my 6 letter "thanks" won't be taken as uncordial and disrespectful.


----------



## Loob

dec-sev said:


> Do you share this belief? You help me when I ask someting on the English Only and I want to be sure that my 6 letter "thanks" won't be taken as uncordial and disrespectful.


Well, to be honest - if I've put some work into answering a post, a flat one-word _Thanks._ could come across as pretty brusque

_Thanks_. would be fine - though it's still not ten characters. So would _Thank you._ - which is exactly 10....


----------



## panjandrum

Thank you.


----------



## dec-sev

Loob said:


> ...a flat one-word _Thanks._ could come across as pretty brusque


  I'd better ask on the English Only. What about "I agree"? 


Flaminius said:


> Posts like "I agree", "You bet", "Nope" or a simple "" are unhelpful and curt.





Loob said:


> So would _Thank you._ - which is exactly 10....


 I've counted only 8 


Loob said:


> I always thought the rule existed for the reason given in Daniel's post 64 - which seems to me to be both fair and sensible.


 Do you mean avoiding spamming or "niceness first"?


----------



## Loob

dec-sev said:


> I'd better ask on the English Only.


By all means.  In the meantime, you might find this Spanish/English thread helpful: click.





dec-sev said:


> I've counted only 8


The space and the full-stop count as characters.


----------



## dec-sev

Loob said:


> By all means.  In the meantime, you might find this Spanish/English thread helpful: click.


Thanks, ups, sorry thank you for the link  But what I´ve learnt from the thread is that "thanks" is simply more informal than "thank you" and wouldn't work in formal situations. Nobody says that it "could come across as pretty brusque"

What about "I agree"? How can it be curt?

And you didn´t answer. Post No 64 and the rule itself. What comes first: avoiding spamming or "niceness first"? If the former, why all this nonsence about unhelphulness and curtness of short answers?


----------



## Loob

dec-sev said:


> Thanks, ups, sorry thank you for the link  But what I´ve learnt from the thread is that "thanks" is simply more informal than "thank you" and wouldn't work in formal situations. Nobody says that it "could come across as pretty brusque"



Read the link more carefully.


> And you didn´t answer. Post No 64 and the rule itself. What comes first: avoiding spamming or "niceness first"? If the former, why all this nonsence about unhelphulness and curtness of short answers?


I don't know: I gave my view.
Expressions like "all this nonsense" are themselves unhelpful.


----------



## dec-sev

Loob said:


> Read the link more carefully.


 4 times but to no avail: I haven't found  any indication that "thanks" can come across as pretty brusque. 


Loob said:


> Expressions like "all this nonsense" are themselves unhelpful.


I know that pretty well. I didn't mean to be helpfull at all. Flaminus wrote that "I agree" is curt and unhelpful. I called this statement "nonsense", but instead of answering my question (How "I agree" can be curt?) you commented on my choice of words. Do you think your post is helpfull?


----------



## Cagey

As a general rule, if you seem to be sparing in your words, it can seem to another person that you are reluctant to make an effort to communicate with them.  That in itself can seem "brusque" or unfriendly, even if the content of the word is fine, and even if your intentions are good.  Thus "thanks" can look like a short-cut for someone who doesn't want to bother with the full form "thank you". 

If you say "I agree" without explaining more fully what you agree with, it can have the same effect.  In addition, in this case, people may be genuinely interested in knowing more about what you think and why you agree. 

It may seem silly that such little things can affect our interpretations of people's intentions, but in the forum we have nothing to go by except the written text.  We tend to form impressions of people from whatever we have at hand.


----------



## sokol

dec-sev said:


> We have the Culture Cafe now. The same sex couples thread there is on the page 8 now if I'm not mistaken. Who wants to beef up their post counts may just subscribe to the thread or post there and he will achieve his goal.


Actually posts in the Café don't add to your post count: so you could try all you like to beef up your post count with posts there.

Therefore, both the argument of post counts and spammers still hold.
And also it doesn't hurt to prevent chat-like responses like "thank u" as replies: because in my opinion we'd get much more of those if there wouldn't be a 10-character-limit.

So my opinion is that I am all in favour of just keeping things as they are.


----------



## panjandrum

dec-sev said:


> ...
> We have the Culture Cafe now. The same sex couples thread there is on the page 8 now if I'm not mistaken. Who wants to beef up their post counts may just subscribe to the thread or post there and he will achieve his goal.
> ...


Subscribing to a thread makes no difference to your post count.


----------

