# Unnecessarily quoting an entire post to respond immediately underneath.



## .   1

I am wondering if there is any suggested protocol regarding quoting the text of an entire post just to say, "I agree" when the response is immediately below the quoted post.

I don't know how many times I have to scroll down past a doubly quoted post just to see a  or "You're right" or "I agree".  Some of these posts are twenty or more lines long.

I can't see the point.  It just looks messy to me.

What am I missing?

.,,


----------



## Jana337

The problem is that - in particular in rush hours - your post might as well end up under a post that you do not agree with at all.

What bothers me much more are unnecessarily long quotes. The threads would be more pleasant to read if people quoted only statements they want to comment on.


----------



## TrentinaNE

Jana337 said:


> The threads would be more pleasant to read if people quoted only statements they want to comment on.


I agree!


----------



## ezi

Jana337 said:


> if people quoted only statements they want to comment on.



Yes!!!!!


----------



## lsp

Thanks for the thread. I agree with .,,. Sometimes I quote, expecting to cross posts with someone in an active thread. If I see that I did manage to post immediately following the post I am directing my comment to, I quickly edit out the quote to do what I can to help try to neaten up the place. It takes no time at all. When I come along later, I try to edit a quote from an earlier post (I'm sure I forget sometimes) - I do think it makes a difference!


----------



## Etcetera

Jana337 said:


> The problem is that - in particular in rush hours - your post might as well end up under a post that you do not agree with at all.


Yes, that's the problem. 
If it's some thread in the CD forum, I prefer to quote the post I am referring to - just in case. But if it's a thread in the Slavic Languages forum, where there's less posters, I simply post my reply without quoting. 
All in all, if after sending you reply you see that there has appeared another post between the one you wanted to comment and your own, you can always edit your reply.


----------



## DrLindenbrock

I'm probably considered one of those guys that - at times - quotes an entire post just to say he agrees with it.
I do this because I - maybe counter-intuitively - think it is for the sake of brevity.
I.e., instead of basically repeating what somebody has already said with different words, I simply agree with what has been said. And to do this, it is often necessary to quote an entire post, as only quoting some sentences could be confusing.

Of course, in many instances, e.g. a question regarding the proper spelling of a word, if somebody has already provided a satisfying answer, there is no point in saying I agree.
But just think about cases such as "how would you translate word X in language A?"; many options might be given, probably with an explanation. In this case, a WR member could help one option "prevail" over another one (especially if he's a native speaker).

Cheers


----------



## TrentinaNE

DrLindenbrock said:


> I.e., instead of basically repeating what somebody has already said with different words, I simply agree with what has been said. And to do this, it is often necessary to quote an entire post, as only quoting some sentences could be confusing.


An alternative is to say "I agree with Jana337 in post #2."  

As a moderator who has to read many threads that don't particularly interest her, believe me, it gets really annoying having to repeatedly scroll down through 4 inches of repeated text (usually of the message directly above) to get to an "I agree" punchline.  

Elisabetta


----------



## lsp

TrentinaAE, it affects us all. With precious little time, wading through inches of quoted repetition is just as annoying as posts that say the same thing as several others members' contributions (especially when they start, "I didn't read the whole thread...") even when confirmation is not an issue.


----------



## maxiogee

lsp said:


> TrentinaNE said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a moderator who has to read (too) many threads that don't particularly interest her,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It affects us all.
Click to expand...


So it appears


----------



## lsp

Max, thanks. (groan)


----------



## fenixpollo

DrLindenbrock said:


> instead of basically repeating what somebody has already said with different words, I simply agree with what has been said. And to do this, it is often necessary to quote an entire post, as only quoting some sentences could be confusing.


 I totally disagree that "only quoting some sentences" could be confusing. When I see someone quote an entire previous post with no modification or clarification, I just assume that the person is lazy. Not only that, but the person is wasting my time because they are making me read [skim] through a post that I've already read, not because they are adding value by quoting it but just because they didn't feel like editing the post before quoting it.

I agree with robert and lisp that quoting the whole post does not positively contribute to the forum experience.


----------



## danielfranco

. said:


> I am quoting





Jana337 said:


> unnecessarily.





TrentinaNE said:


> I agree!





ezi said:


> Yes!!!!!





lsp said:


> Sometimes I quote





Etcetera said:


> just in case





DrLindenbrock said:


> one of those guys





TrentinaNE said:


> who has to repeatedly scroll down





lsp said:


> wading through inches of quoted repetition (especially when they





maxiogee said:


> So





lsp said:


> groan)





fenixpollo said:


> assume that the person is lazy.
> 
> I agree with robert and lisp that quoting the whole post does not positively contribute to the forum experience.


----------



## Etcetera

Dear Danielfranko, your post gave me the best laugh I've had in two months.


----------



## DrLindenbrock

TrentinaNE said:


> An alternative is to say "I agree with Jana337 in post #2."
> Elisabetta


 
All right, I accept this proposal.
I personally think that by just saying this my post would be easily skipped but I see the point that scrolling down 4 inches of text can be annoying.
So, I'll do the best to implement your suggestion. 

As for the statement that 



> I totally disagree that "only quoting some sentences" could be confusing.


 
I think I made clear that only quoting some sentences _can_ be confusing in _some_ circumstances. Most of the time, I do indeed quote only a few relevant sentences. 

I think the point you guys (and girls) made is a reasonable one and I will do my best to make this forum a nice place with readable threads and posts. 
I do not however see the point of accusing people of laziness just because they use a different quoting style. I hope I don't hurt anybody's feelings, but I believe criticism can be made even without being judgemental towards other people.  

Enjoy posting!


----------



## fenixpollo

Not only was I being judgmental, I was making assumptions.  I don't understand why someone would think it was constructive to quote an entire post and then make no addition, subtraction or comment about it, so I prescribe motives to them based only on my imagination. I apologize for offending.

What you seem to be saying is that you are going to quote an entire post and then make the assumption that people know that you are quoting it in order to agree with it. How are we going to know that unless you comment on it? 

It also seems that you're saying that you quote a whole post in order to not be repetitious; but it's repetitious to ask the rest of us to read the same post twice. You're quite articulate yourself and I'm sure that even if you made the same point as the other poster, but using your own words, it would be much more interesting to read.


----------



## .   1

fenixpollo said:


> What you seem to be saying is that you are going to quote an entire post and then make the assumption that people know that you are quoting it in order to agree with it. How are we going to know that unless you comment on it?


This has happened to me a few times and I was at a loss. I remember asking what it meant but do not remember the response. I had no idea.

It looked to me like an ironic post meaning that my post was so devoid of content that it wasn't worth dignifying with a comment.

'I won't dignify that by responding to it' or one of the many varieties is a common left handed insult.

At least I now know that it means,
"''" or '"'

.,,


----------



## heidita

Personally I think it is very annoying to "read" a post saying" I agree " or simply " " while quoting all the post. 
This does not only not contribute anything to the thread but seems to be a simple method to "add" posts to the list. Some people are rather addicted to this method.


----------



## lsp

In general, I agree with heidita's remark, but I would add an exception. Sometimes the previous post simply says, "wait for natives to confirm" and the  is appropriately succinct (still, long quotes are unnecessary in this case).


----------



## Bienvenidos

I'm not sure how to express agreement now  Some of the posters, both the ones who post questions and replies, are sometimes looking for feedback as to whether their first assumption is correct or not, and it's always good to hear someone else agree with you.  I always try to write as much as I can to "sculpt" a new post that contributes to the thread, but sometimes I have to admit that all I say is, "I agree with my good friend Heidi" and then I leave the thread because my main intent was to extol the achievements of another forero who has already answered the question to the fullest extent, thereby leaving nothing left for me to help out with 

It seems like this plagues mostly the CD though...am I wrong?


----------



## SrRdRaCinG

People are becoming too lazy to scroll their finger down to view the quote 

I never used to utilize the quoting system, and my arrows "^ ^" would be pointing at the wrong person's message. Not cool (back then). Now I enjoy it!


----------



## DrLindenbrock

Well, I see the majority stands in favour of not quoting entire posts, and as I said, that's fine with me. 
I'll just answer some of the points that were brought up after my last post.
I agree with Bienvenidos that 





> Some of the posters, both the ones who post questions and replies, are sometimes looking for feedback as to whether their first assumption is correct or not, and it's always good to hear someone else agree with you.


. This is the point I was trying to make from the beginning, maybe Bienvenidos did a better job than me in outlining it. 
Another point - and I am elaborating mostly on Fenixpollo's post (by the way, all right, I don't get offended on "academic disputes"  ); I figured that after you've been in the forum for more than a few days and you're familiar with the layout, you can scan much of the text without really reading it.
In other words, you see a quoted post, you rapidly see who's the author, and more or less remember what it said. I obviously fully respect others' (the majority  ) opinions, but I feel that if anything this takes up space, but doesn't really take away time.
And since we're at it, let's define case A and case B.
Case A: it's a short thread, so we basically remember all the posts we read. So when you see a quote you already know by heart, you just go down.
Case B: it's a very long thread, with posts spread on more than one page. In this case I feel quoting entire posts (within reason) can be helpful to avoid having to go back several pages to see what member X said in post 3.
(Ok, I know the objection: threads are long because people post entire quotes ... all right, there's some truth to it  )

Finally, on the thought that quoting an entire thread and saying you agree and nothing more could be interpreted as ironic, sarcastic or not nice, I confess I hadn't thought about it.

Anyway - caveat - these considerations were just to motivate my opinion, not to reopen discussion on an issue that seems to be settled. I think I'll move on to the languages fora!
See you


----------



## fenixpollo

DrLindenbrock said:


> I figured that after you've been in the forum for more than a few days and you're familiar with the layout, you can scan much of the text without really reading it.


 I would much rather take the time to read a concise, well-written post than to have to skim several overly-verbose posts.  

Likewise, I would like to think that people are actually _reading_ my own posts, not skimming them.


----------



## DrLindenbrock

fenixpollo said:


> I would much rather take the time to read a concise, well-written post than to have to skim several overly-verbose posts.
> 
> Likewise, I would like to think that people are actually _reading_ my own posts, not skimming them.


 
Correct! And I said I'm not going to do that anymore, so no point in going on and on.  
By the way, by reading my previous post you can gather that I meant you can skim a quotation (of old stuff) at the beginning of a new post ("can", not "must"). In simple language, the old stuff is just there as a reference (whether this is useful or not, we already discussed it) while the new stuff would certainly get read since it's clear it's new stuff. I certainly did not mean one should skim a "new" post... although he could...  ("could", not "must")
Regards


----------

