MY peeve is... honestly.... posters who.........

[+WebChimp]

Geocaching is fun, and reading about geocaching is fun when the real thing can't be done. The best geocache reading takes place right here, in these forums. However:

 

*Mounting soapbox, clearing throat...........*

 

What rankles me....... really......... is when someone replies to a post, and then quotes the entire dang post just to add one or two sentences as a reply. Some even leave the inline image links intact, so that the next reader must display the entire post and view all images twice just in order to read the words "I agree" or some two sentence reply.

 

It's time to learn how to edit the lines you quote. If the OP is five paragraphs, and one line really caught your attention, it's a good thing to take out everything except the one line that you are referring to. If the OP has a photo of a cache container, or some other cool thing, we've already seen the image. Please at least remove the image link from the quote you are replying to.

 

Be bandwidth kind to other cachers. Please edit your quotes.

 

*Dismounting soapbox, dusting self off, running for cover*

 

(Yes, I know what's coming. Someone will quote this entire post and just say "I agree." I know it will happen, but for the sake of the common good, this needed to be said. Now resuming "running for cover" mode.)

Edited July 18, 2008 by WebChimp

[+WebChimp]

(I also dislike double posts. Darn.)

Edited July 18, 2008 by WebChimp

[+sbell111]

... It's time to learn how to edit the lines you quote. If the OP is five paragraphs, and one line really caught your attention, it's a good thing to take out everything except the one line that you are referring to. If the OP has a photo of a cache container, or some other cool thing, we've already seen the image. Please at least remove the image link from the quote you are replying to. ...

I agree, somewhat. It's important to note, however, that overparsing a post is much worse than not parsing it at all. If you delete too much from the other person's post, you run the risk of altering the meaning of that post.

 

Come to think of it, I am bothered much more by people who over-parse a post or break the quoty thing, thereby making their post almost impossible to decipher than I am when people choose not to parse the post, at all. Then there are those who's reply is merely a quote of the entire previous post with no accompanying comment...

Edited July 18, 2008 by sbell111

[+WebChimp]

If you delete too much from the other person's post, you run the risk of altering the meaning of that post.

 

I agree, I'm just wishing responders would only quote the parts that are pertinent to the reply. Quoting is good when it is the relevant section.

[+WebChimp]

Then there are those who's reply is merely a quote of the entire previous post with no accompanying comment...

 

Oh, yeah. I didn't think about those replies while I was on my soapbox. Now that I'm off it, I guess I'll have to wait for the next opportunity.

[+TotemLake]

Geocaching is fun, and reading about geocaching is fun when the real thing can't be done. The best geocache reading takes place right here, in these forums. However:

 

*Mounting soapbox, clearing throat...........*

 

What rankles me....... really......... is when someone replies to a post, and then quotes the entire dang post just to add one or two sentences as a reply. Some even leave the inline image links intact, so that the next reader must display the entire post and view all images twice just in order to read the words "I agree" or some two sentence reply.

 

It's time to learn how to edit the lines you quote. If the OP is five paragraphs, and one line really caught your attention, it's a good thing to take out everything except the one line that you are referring to. If the OP has a photo of a cache container, or some other cool thing, we've already seen the image. Please at least remove the image link from the quote you are replying to.

 

Be bandwidth kind to other cachers. Please edit your quotes.

 

*Dismounting soapbox, dusting self off, running for cover*

 

(Yes, I know what's coming. Someone will quote this entire post and just say "I agree." I know it will happen, but for the sake of the common good, this needed to be said. Now resuming "running for cover" mode.)

Sometimes editing the quote takes the entire post out of context, which then leads to more bandwidth defending and clarifying. Sooner or later there will be a point of diminishing returns for the brevity unless the answer is carefullyi crafted for JUST the quoted text so the answer is still considered within text. A lot of people really don't know how to do that. In a perfect world, your expectations are not set too high. This isn't a perfect world.

[+UncleJimbo]

... It's time to learn how to edit the lines you quote. If the OP is five paragraphs, and one line really caught your attention, it's a good thing to take out everything except the one line that you are referring to. If the OP has a photo of a cache container, or some other cool thing, we've already seen the image. Please at least remove the image link from the quote you are replying to. ...

I agree, somewhat. It's important to note, however, that overparsing a post is much worse than not parsing it at all. If you delete too much from the other person's post, you run the risk of altering the meaning of that post.

 

Come to think of it, I am bothered much more by people who over-parse a post or break the quoty thing, thereby making their post almost impossible to decipher than I am when people choose not to parse the post, at all. Then there are those who's reply is merely a quote of the entire previous post with no accompanying comment...

 

I am bothered more by people who do not quote at all, leaving me wondering which post they are replying to. Posts are not always displayed in chronological order, so very often a reply is not displayed right below the post to which it is replying.

[+WebChimp]

This isn't a perfect world.

 

It's NOT? Well, then. That certainly explains a lot.

[+WebChimp]

I am bothered more by people who do not quote at all, leaving me wondering which post they are replying to.

 

Darn. Another situation that needs attention.

 

Okay, here's the new, proposed "Rule of Quotes": "Quote what you are replying to, but no more than necessary.".

 

I'm sure this will be ratified in no time flat.

[+PJPeters]

...

Come to think of it, I am bothered much more by people who over-parse a post or break the quoty thing, thereby making their post almost impossible to decipher than I am when people choose not to parse the post, at all. Then there are those who's reply is merely a quote of the entire previous post with no accompanying comment...

So why don't people ever use the 'preview' button? I almost never reply to a post without previewing it. That way, I know before it goes up if it'll look right.

[+Castle Mischief]

I also dislike scrolling through page after page of quotes nested inside of quotes, nested inside of quotes...

 

Double that if these quotes include images and increase the footprint of the quote.

 

Triple that if somebody has somehow mangled the BB code and failed to actually make the quote appear as a quote and there's snippets of bracketed kibble hanging around the post.

 

But, hey, it's the interweb. You try to point out these things to folks that will listen and hope for the best or you only visit forums that enforce rules against such things. I've done both with different levels of satisfaction.

 

Also: quote quote quote quote

 

(EDIT: I also don't like not having spell check on this computer...)

Edited July 18, 2008 by Castle Mischief

[+WebChimp]

So why don't people ever use the 'preview' button?

 

Many people do use it, but since there seem to be so many who don't........

 

Here's the revised, proposed "Rule of Quotes": "Quote what you are replying to, but no more than necessary, and preview it first.".

 

Ratification may be delayed a bit...

[+the hermit crabs]

snippets of bracketed kibble

 

Every once in a while I see a phrase that catches my eye and appeals to a certain part of my brain, and stays in it for a few days (or forever)... "snippets of bracketed kibble" has just joined that list

 

 

(edit: now, of course, I am thinking about creating a cache by that name, and wondering what can be done as part of the cache setup that will justify using that as a name.)

Edited July 18, 2008 by the hermit crabs

[+va griz]

Okay, here's the new, proposed "Rule of Quotes": "Quote what you are replying to, but no more than necessary.".

 

I'm sure this will be ratified in no time flat.

 

I'll second the motion and move it to a vote.

[+va griz]

Then there are those who's reply is merely a quote of the entire previous post with no accompanying comment...

[+sbell111]

Okay, here's the new, proposed "Rule of Quotes": "Quote what you are replying to, but no more than necessary.".

 

I'm sure this will be ratified in no time flat.

 

I'll second the motion and move it to a vote.

You have to have 2/3 support to take it to a vote. Sorry.

[+Castle Mischief]

snippets of bracketed kibble

 

Every once in a while I see a phrase that catches my eye and appeals to a certain part of my brain, and stays in it for a few days (or forever)... "snippets of bracketed kibble" has just joined that list

 

I can't take total credit. I'm taking the word "kibble" as it applies to Transformers toys. It seemed to work in this instance.

 

(Hey! I edited your quote!)

[+UncleJimbo]

Okay, here's the new, proposed "Rule of Quotes": "Quote what you are replying to, but no more than necessary.".

 

I'm sure this will be ratified in no time flat.

 

I'll second the motion and move it to a vote.

What about people who use Quotes but then edit out the attribution?

[+sbell111]

snippets of bracketed kibble

 

Every once in a while I see a phrase that catches my eye and appeals to a certain part of my brain, and stays in it for a few days (or forever)... "snippets of bracketed kibble" has just joined that list

 

(edit: now, of course, I am thinking about creating a cache by that name, and wondering what can be done as part of the cache setup that will justify using that as a name.)

Me, too. Of course, I still haven't placed my 'dangerous and stupid' cache.

[+nerds5]

Okay, here's the new, proposed "Rule of Quotes": "Quote what you are replying to, but no more than necessary.".

It's all about context...

[+sbell111]

Okay, here's the new, proposed "Rule of Quotes": "Quote what you are replying to, but no more than necessary.".

It's all about context...

Some people will never be content, no matter what.

[+infiniteMPG]

What rankles me....... really......... is when someone replies to a post, and then quotes the entire dang post just to add one or two sentences as a reply. Some even leave the inline image links intact, so that the next reader must display the entire post and view all images twice just in order to read the words "I agree" or some two sentence reply.

This would have to rank up there with the email reply "Thanks!" followed by the email reply "No problem!" followed by the email reply "Anytime!" and all with the complete previous dozens of emails included and everyone CC'ed. Ahhhh, the lost art of communication skills.

 

(I also dislike double posts. Darn.)

I just dislike the fact you can't fully delete them. Maybe we could sell them half price to the next person posting?

 

I agree, somewhat. It's important to note, however, that overparsing a post is much worse than not parsing it at all. If you delete too much from the other person's post, you run the risk of altering the meaning of that post.

There is fine line there, but if one previews the message and actually re-reads their message before hitting ADD REPLY then it should be okay.

 

Sometimes editing the quote takes the entire post out of context, which then leads to more bandwidth defending and clarifying. Sooner or later there will be a point of diminishing returns for the brevity unless the answer is carefullyi crafted for JUST the quoted text so the answer is still considered within text. A lot of people really don't know how to do that. In a perfect world, your expectations are not set too high. This isn't a perfect world.

But we're still hoping it can be!

 

I am bothered more by people who do not quote at all, leaving me wondering which post they are replying to. Posts are not always displayed in chronological order, so very often a reply is not displayed right below the post to which it is replying.

Agreed! I like being able to quote from several previous messages at once so when you see snippets from several posts you want to reply to you don't have to post several different replies. Makes it easier for people to skip by your comments if they want

[+WebChimp]

Every once in a while I see a phrase that catches my eye and appeals to a certain part of my brain, and stays in it for a few days (or forever)... "snippets of bracketed kibble" has just joined that list

 

Now I'm wondering "How can I possibly work that phrase into a conversation?".

[+The Blorenges]

Every once in a while I see a phrase that catches my eye and appeals to a certain part of my brain, and stays in it for a few days (or forever)... "snippets of bracketed kibble" has just joined that list

 

Now I'm wondering "How can I possibly work that phrase into a conversation?".

 

"I had snippets of bracketed kibble for breakfast today."

 

 

MrsB

 

[+Airmapper]

What rankles me....... really......... is when someone replies to a post, and then quotes the entire dang post just to add one or two sentences as a reply. Some even leave the inline image links intact, so that the next reader must display the entire post and view all images twice just in order to read the words "I agree" or some two sentence reply.

This would have to rank up there with the email reply "Thanks!" followed by the email reply "No problem!" followed by the email reply "Anytime!" and all with the complete previous dozens of emails included and everyone CC'ed. Ahhhh, the lost art of communication skills.

 

(I also dislike double posts. Darn.)

I just dislike the fact you can't fully delete them. Maybe we could sell them half price to the next person posting?

 

I agree, somewhat. It's important to note, however, that overparsing a post is much worse than not parsing it at all. If you delete too much from the other person's post, you run the risk of altering the meaning of that post.

There is fine line there, but if one previews the message and actually re-reads their message before hitting ADD REPLY then it should be okay.

 

Sometimes editing the quote takes the entire post out of context, which then leads to more bandwidth defending and clarifying. Sooner or later there will be a point of diminishing returns for the brevity unless the answer is carefullyi crafted for JUST the quoted text so the answer is still considered within text. A lot of people really don't know how to do that. In a perfect world, your expectations are not set too high. This isn't a perfect world.

But we're still hoping it can be!

 

I am bothered more by people who do not quote at all, leaving me wondering which post they are replying to. Posts are not always displayed in chronological order, so very often a reply is not displayed right below the post to which it is replying.

Agreed! I like being able to quote from several previous messages at once so when you see snippets from several posts you want to reply to you don't have to post several different replies. Makes it easier for people to skip by your comments if they want

 

What really gets me is when people break the tags in a quote chain.

[+Renegade Knight]

Geocaching is fun...

 

Agreed. But I can't figure out where the pet peeve fits in...

[+WebChimp]

Geocaching is fun...

 

Agreed. But I can't figure out where the pet peeve fits in...

 

(Double quotes included to maintain the thread of thought...........)

 

It's fits in when I try to read a forum post about geocaching, and a significant portion of the tread is previously stated and unnecessarily quoted text and images. Most of my forum access time is on broadband, but a part of it is on dialup. The over-quoted text and photos slows down the load speed so much that I no longer even try to load this forum while using dialup. Since this forum is an essential geocaching learning tool for us here in the hinterlands, usable access can be important to our geocaching lives.

[+wimseyguy]

My pet peeve is OP's who feel they have to reply to every other post made and end up with more than 20% of the thread's posts.

Edited July 18, 2008 by wimseyguy

[+Headhardhat]

What rankles me....... really......... is when someone replies to a post, and then quotes the entire dang post just to add one or two sentences as a reply. Some even leave the inline image links intact, so that the next reader must display the entire post and view all images twice just in order to read the words "I agree" or some two sentence reply.

This would have to rank up there with the email reply "Thanks!" followed by the email reply "No problem!" followed by the email reply "Anytime!" and all with the complete previous dozens of emails included and everyone CC'ed. Ahhhh, the lost art of communication skills.

 

(I also dislike double posts. Darn.)

I just dislike the fact you can't fully delete them. Maybe we could sell them half price to the next person posting?

 

I agree, somewhat. It's important to note, however, that overparsing a post is much worse than not parsing it at all. If you delete too much from the other person's post, you run the risk of altering the meaning of that post.

There is fine line there, but if one previews the message and actually re-reads their message before hitting ADD REPLY then it should be okay.

 

Sometimes editing the quote takes the entire post out of context, which then leads to more bandwidth defending and clarifying. Sooner or later there will be a point of diminishing returns for the brevity unless the answer is carefullyi crafted for JUST the quoted text so the answer is still considered within text. A lot of people really don't know how to do that. In a perfect world, your expectations are not set too high. This isn't a perfect world.

But we're still hoping it can be!

 

I am bothered more by people who do not quote at all, leaving me wondering which post they are replying to. Posts are not always displayed in chronological order, so very often a reply is not displayed right below the post to which it is replying.

Agreed! I like being able to quote from several previous messages at once so when you see snippets from several posts you want to reply to you don't have to post several different replies. Makes it easier for people to skip by your comments if they want

 

Me Too

 

-Signed Long Day At Work And Feeling Sarcastic

 

<Handing extra Nanna to Monkey>

[+WebChimp]

My pet peeve is OP's who feel they have to reply to every other post made and end up with more than 20% of the thread's posts.

 

Life's full of little things like that, isn't it?

[+WebChimp]

<Handing extra Nanna to Monkey>

 

Simians like nanners. Thanks.

[Mushtang]

What really gets me is when people break the tags in a quote chain.

Or people that quote something to make a point that was made very early in the thread showing that they haven't actually read the thread.

 

[+Airmapper]

What really gets me is when people break the tags in a quote chain.

Or people that quote something to make a point that was made very early in the thread showing that they haven't actually read the thread.

 

 

You got me on that one. Has anyone complained about people who add their comment in the other persons quote box yet?

[Mr.Yuck]

What rankles me....... really......... is when someone replies to a post, and then quotes the entire dang post just to add one or two sentences as a reply. Some even leave the inline image links intact, so that the next reader must display the entire post and view all images twice just in order to read the words "I agree" or some two sentence reply.

This would have to rank up there with the email reply "Thanks!" followed by the email reply "No problem!" followed by the email reply "Anytime!" and all with the complete previous dozens of emails included and everyone CC'ed. Ahhhh, the lost art of communication skills.

 

(I also dislike double posts. Darn.)

I just dislike the fact you can't fully delete them. Maybe we could sell them half price to the next person posting?

 

I agree, somewhat. It's important to note, however, that overparsing a post is much worse than not parsing it at all. If you delete too much from the other person's post, you run the risk of altering the meaning of that post.

There is fine line there, but if one previews the message and actually re-reads their message before hitting ADD REPLY then it should be okay.

 

Sometimes editing the quote takes the entire post out of context, which then leads to more bandwidth defending and clarifying. Sooner or later there will be a point of diminishing returns for the brevity unless the answer is carefullyi crafted for JUST the quoted text so the answer is still considered within text. A lot of people really don't know how to do that. In a perfect world, your expectations are not set too high. This isn't a perfect world.

But we're still hoping it can be!

 

I am bothered more by people who do not quote at all, leaving me wondering which post they are replying to. Posts are not always displayed in chronological order, so very often a reply is not displayed right below the post to which it is replying.

Agreed! I like being able to quote from several previous messages at once so when you see snippets from several posts you want to reply to you don't have to post several different replies. Makes it easier for people to skip by your comments if they want

 

Me Too

 

-Signed Long Day At Work And Feeling Sarcastic

 

<Handing extra Nanna to Monkey>

 

My pet peeve, and I'm dead serious, is people who waste internet bandwidth with excessive use of the "." character.

[+Save The Murlocs]

I also have a little peeve about people who quote the OP asking the original question/comment...I think since everyone knows that's what the thread is about, you don't really need to quote that part...

 

I'm not sure this makes sense but hopefully you all know what I mean.

[+WeightMan]

I also have a little peeve about people who quote the OP asking the original question/comment...I think since everyone knows that's what the thread is about, you don't really need to quote that part...

 

I'm not sure this makes sense but hopefully you all know what I mean.

I'm not too sure. Perhaps if you had quoted the OP on this, I might understand better.

 

[AZcachemeister]

My pet peeve is OP's who feel they have to reply to every other post made and end up with more than 20% of the thread's posts.

 

HA!

 

You get a nanner for that one!

 

 

 

 

Resisting the temptation to quote every post in this thread for (over) dramatic effect.

[+GRNZOOM]

This may have been mentioned.

 

Not posting parking coords. with a cache.

 

Sure, the guy who placed the cache knows where the trail head is... but few other might not.

 

How hard is to post parking coords. with a cache when needed.

 

Nick

[Mushtang]

This may have been mentioned.

 

Not posting parking coords. with a cache.

 

Sure, the guy who placed the cache knows where the trail head is... but few other might not.

 

How hard is to post parking coords. with a cache when needed.

 

Nick

How about people that complain about a cache in a thread about forum quoting? That's a pet peeve too.