What Makes a Good Post?

[Occams Barber]

I'd rather spend more time doing that in real life.

C'mon MMXX

Here you are chatting with a fascinating raconteur who lives on the other side of the world

OB

 

[Servus]

C'mon MMXX

Here you are chatting with a fascinating raconteur who lives on the other side of the world

OB

Yes, and since they're brief exchanges, they're being read.

 

[Occams Barber]

Yes, and since they're brief exchanges, they're being read.

Yep, We could keep going grunting in monosyllables and bore everyone to death, or I could leave you in peace to contemplate your navel.

I suspect navel gazing will be more productive for you.

OB

 

[Servus]

Yep, We could keep going grunting in monosyllables and bore everyone to death, or I could leave you in peace to contemplate your navel.

I suspect navel gazing will be more productive for you.

OB

Why are you being rude?

 

[Occams Barber]

Why are you being rude?

That's not me being rude MMXX - it's an Australian sense of humour where 'taking the {INSERT EXPLETIVE}' is actually a friendly act.

I will however leave you since I have a lunch to cook.

OB

 

[Servus]

That's not me being rude MMXX - it's an Australian sense of humour where 'taking the {INSERT EXPLETIVE}' is actually a friendly act.

I will however leave you since I have a lunch to cook.

OB

No wait. Put that on hold. I have a series of lengthy posts for you to read instead.

 

[Bob Crowley]

Can you imagine a live discussion/debate between 10 people, where each person gave speeches? Usually in a setting like that, people try to be as concise and comprehensive as possible. Sometimes people are even put on a timer. Now I could crank out 1000 more words in this response, but I already made my point.

Toastmasters is like that. Everything is timed, with the majority of prepared speeches in the 5 to 7 minute time range for example.

But I found that Toastmasters members in general don't make great debaters, even if some of them are brilliant speakers.

The ethos of Toastmasters is to encourage people, with a kiss-kick-kiss approach to speech evaluations for example ie. say something good about the speech, then a suggestion for improvement, followed by a positive summary.

But in debating you're trying to cut the other bloke off at the knees, which is the complete opposite to the positive encouragement TM members are expected to provide.

In formal debating ad hominem attacks are in theory not allowed, but Australian politicians don't seem to quibble over that. Any old mud slinging seems to be the rule.

 

[Servus]

Toastmasters is like that. Everything is timed, with the majority of prepared speeches in the 5 to 7 minute time range for example.

But I found that Toastmasters members in general don't make great debaters, even if some of them are brilliant speakers.

The ethos of Toastmasters is to encourage people, with a kiss-kick-kiss approach to speech evaluations for example ie. say something good about the speech, then a suggestion for improvement, followed by a positive summary.

But in debating you're trying to cut the other bloke off at the knees, which is the complete opposite to the positive encouragement TM members are expected to provide.

In formal debating ad hominem attacks are in theory not allowed, but Australian politicians don't seem to quibble over that rule. Any old mud slinging seems to be the rule.

In all the forums I've been on combind with usenet, I've made at least 200k posts. 95% of them have been about this length. And thus probably 95% have been read.

 

[Hazelelponi]

What Makes a Good Post?


What makes a good post? By that I mean what is it about a post which makes you want to read it?

I’m not talking here about topic. We all have preferred interests along with topics we avoid. I’m asking about things like writing style and appearance, words and layout, links and pictures - the look and feel and readability of a post. What (apart from the topic) makes a post interesting?

Are there also posting styles which tend to turn you off after the first few words or posts you automatically avoid based on appearance?


What makes a good post?

OB

(it’s probably unnecessary but I’ll say it anyway. This thread is not about criticising individual posters.)

A good post can easily be read on a smaller screen, this means paragraphing isn't what was taught in school; it's shorter.

A good post gets to the point quickly and provides external support for any conclusions made, when possible.

A good post is clear and easily understood.

Posting styles that are automatically off-putting? Any that don't follow the above rules of thumb. Posts that are simply walls of text; generally unclear as to what point is being made; manages to drone on and on without reaching a main point quickly are all automatically off-putting.

I'm fine with a few small grammatical errors as most people don't have time to proofread simple discussion posts. I don't compare a post to a well written book.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I notice often that certain posters are not familiar with 'modifiers' - those little words like 'maybe', 'perhaps', 'possibly', 'sometimes' which suggest that there is a possibility (however remote) that they could be wrong.

Christianity is notoriously black and white (and never wrong) in its opinions.

OB

I never modify or otherwise admit the possibility any conclusion I've made (on any topic) could be incorrect. The whole point of debating is to prove one's point. If mine is incorrect it will be proven so.

So I don't worry about modifiers in people's posts, I don't use them.

I dislike it when I provide supporting links and they remain unread and the person I'm speaking to continues on as if I didn't show my work. That happened here a few weeks ago and it still bothers me.. lol. Nothing makes me peace out of discussion faster.

I won't always read links, especially immediately after getting a virus from following them, but I generally try and note when I haven't which gives the poster the opportunity to share any relevant information in their own writing.

 

[Occams Barber]

A good post can easily be read on a smaller screen, this means paragraphing isn't what was taught in school; it's shorter.

A good post gets to the point quickly and provides external support for any conclusions made, when possible.

A good post is clear and easily understood.

Posting styles that are automatically off-putting? Any that don't follow the above rules of thumb. Posts that are simply walls of text; generally unclear as to what point is being made; manages to drone on and on without reaching a main point quickly are all automatically off-putting.

I'm fine with a few small grammatical errors as most people don't have time to proofread simple discussion posts. I don't compare a post to a well written book.

I use a desktop with a 27" screen (I'm also a gamer) so visibility isn't a problem although I agree that wall of text posts are a major pain in the backside.

I've often wondered if CFers who use phone screens are at a major disadvantage in screen layout and readability making the length of a post more of an issue.

OB

 

[Hazelelponi]

I use a desktop with a 27" screen (I'm also a gamer) so visibility isn't a problem although I agree that wall of text posts are a major pain in the backside.

I've often wondered if CFers who use phone screens are at a major disadvantage in screen layout and readability making the length of a post more of an issue.

OB

Being on a phone truly is a disadvantage. I have to be on one, as I've not been able to sit comfortably for a couple years due to disability, and there's a huge difference in readability. It's also much harder on your eyes in general.

It's a disadvantage here on CF also in that someone's faith or lack thereof can't readily be seen, so I don't know if I'm speaking to a Christian or an atheist in some areas, like politics. Unless I have gotten to know the poster, I really don't know.

The way you're posting here is perfect for the phone, but it likely appears silly on a computer..

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What Makes a Good Post?


What makes a good post? By that I mean what is it about a post which makes you want to read it?

I’m not talking here about topic. We all have preferred interests along with topics we avoid. I’m asking about things like writing style and appearance, words and layout, links and pictures - the look and feel and readability of a post. What (apart from the topic) makes a post interesting?

Are there also posting styles which tend to turn you off after the first few words or posts you automatically avoid based on appearance?


What makes a good post?

OB

(it’s probably unnecessary but I’ll say it anyway. This thread is not about criticising individual posters.)

For me, a good post, like a good day, is one that shows some brightness ...

 

[Servus]

I'm on CF either with a large screen at home or my phone on the go and at work. The lack of faith being readily visible in the profile is inconvenient. Other than that, I find CF pretty much phone friendly.

 

[Occams Barber]

Being on a phone truly is a disadvantage. I have to be on one, as I've not been able to sit comfortably for a couple years due to disability, and there's a huge difference in readability. It's also much harder on your eyes in general.

It's a disadvantage here on CF also in that someone's faith or lack thereof can't readily be seen, so I don't know if I'm speaking to a Christian or an atheist in some areas, like politics. Unless I have gotten to know the poster, I really don't know.

The way you're posting here is perfect for the phone, but it likely appears silly on a computer..

I'm conscious of readability. My posts are usually broken up into brief paragraphs. I try to keep sentences short and I use a lot of punctuation, mainly commas, to break up longer sentences. To me it looks OK on on the computer screen since I'm a fan of white space.

BTW - I'm an Australian atheist.

OB