Double posting vs. edits

[confocaloid]

EDIT by dvgrn: Now that there's a separate thread for this specific topic, I've moved this series over here from the "miscellaneous posts and discussions" thread where Sokwe put them initially. See below for why most of the links below don't work any more.

That's a 6-tuple post. Is there any good reason why those patterns need to go in separate posts (rather than just editing the most recent post)?
(Same question for other threads with repeated multiposts that look unnecessary.)

[...]
In order to keep the forums organized, please [...] Do not post multiple messages consecutively in the same topic. If your message is the most recent one in a topic, simply edit it if you have additional things to add.
[...]

[Vort]

Is there any good reason why those patterns need to go in separate posts (rather than just editing the most recent post)?

Editing makes no notifications as far as I know.
So almost no one notices edits.

Checking every topic on forum to see if there was any edit is... not wise.

[confocaloid]

Editing makes no notifications as far as I know.
So almost no one notices edits.

This is still much better than the opposite situation (when multiple consecutive posts are made with little new knowledge of interest, sending notifications to everyone who is subscribed, and people check the thread again only to see that there's an unnecessary double-post).

Too many unnecessary posts lead to people losing interest and unsubscribing from the thread, due to decreasing S/N ratio.

The forum rules ( viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2092 ) specifically say on this:
"Do not post multiple messages consecutively in the same topic. If your message is the most recent one in a topic, simply edit it if you have additional things to add."

[Sokwe]

...

That's a 6-tuple post. Is there any good reason why those patterns need to go in separate posts (rather than just editing the most recent post)?

The date range is pretty big between posts, so I think it's fine in this case. If it were 6 posts in the span of a few days I might think differently. Also, I moved this discussion to the miscellaneous discussion thread.

[Vort]

The forum rules ( viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2092 ) specifically say on this:
"Do not post multiple messages consecutively in the same topic. If your message is the most recent one in a topic, simply edit it if you have additional things to add."

I think rules are wrong.

This is still much better than the opposite situation (when multiple consecutive posts are made with little new knowledge of interest, sending notifications to everyone who is subscribed, and people check the thread again only to see that there's an unnecessary double-post).

Too many unnecessary posts lead to people losing interest and unsubscribing from the thread, due to decreasing S/N ratio.

Small frequent additions make sense to group into one post.
People are watching active thread, people replying there, so information is not hidden.

But infrequent, large or important changes make sense to post separately.

---

As example: I may create program, post source code, binaries, charts.
Then after a week I create different program, and going to share large amount of information about it as well.
Putting everything into single post just "because of rules" is not good.

[confocaloid]

[...]
Small frequent additions make sense to group into one post.
People are watching active thread, people replying there, so information is not hidden.

But infrequent, large or important changes make sense to post separately.

---

As example: I may create program, post source code, binaries, charts.
Then after a week I create different program, and going to share large amount of information about it as well.
Putting everything into single post just "because of rules" is not good.

Right, that all makes sense. It makes sense to add a new post when there is some new update of some kind, when such updates are significant and not too frequent.

However, in this case (the 6-tuple post about SKOPs) my opinion is that it would be better to edit the most recent post, instead of multiposting. I think in this case the updates are not particularly significant or "urgent". People who are interested in the topic of SKOPs will most likely notice the edits the next time when they go to the thread.

[hotdogPi]

It's previously been established that double posting is fine if there's new content, especially a new discovery. Despite this, some people have put new discoveries in an edit rather than making a new post, and I have at times waited for someone else to make a post so that my two posts aren't consecutive. This ruling has been questioned with Period1GliderGun being called out by confocaloid when P1GG made six consecutive posts in the SKOP thread (which seems to be hidden entirely — I can't find it for some reason even looking through P1GG's post history) over a few weeks.

Meanwhile, hiding a discovery in an edit leads to things being missed entirely, like a non-Herschel-based p71 gun here.

[confocaloid]

Editing the most recent post is preferable to multiposting, unless there is a significant update on the topic or a clearly-interesting new discovery. Otherwise, there are too many unnecessary multiposts.

What could be really bad is editing new discoveries into an old post that is no longer the most recent post in a thread, but that's not what this thread is about.

The forum rules already tell to not make multiple consecutive posts.

[...] (which seems to be hidden entirely — I can't find it for some reason even looking through P1GG's post history) [...]

Those consecutive posts were ping-quoted in viewtopic.php?p=196848#p196848 and apparently were later merged into a single post viewtopic.php?p=193126#p193126

[...]
Meanwhile, hiding a discovery in an edit leads to things being missed entirely, like a non-Herschel-based p71 gun here.

I can tell for sure that that p71 gun wasn't missed entirely, because I did see it in an edit. It is not too hard to see edits to the most recent post when you're interested in a topic anyway.

[dvgrn]

I think rules are wrong.
...
As example: I may create program, post source code, binaries, charts.
Then after a week I create different program, and going to share large amount of information about it as well.
Putting everything into single post just "because of rules" is not good.

I do agree that that the no-double-posting rule is too simplistic, as it's currently stated.

The current rule is definitely intended to be cited when a newcomer does stuff like this.

The current rule is definitely not intended to be invoked when someone does a double-post for perfectly legitimate reasons, like this.

There are endless "sorry for double-posting" apologies scattered around in various threads -- and in the vast majority of those cases, no apology is necessary. Most of the time, if somebody is aware of the no-double-posting rule, and they double-post anyway, it's for a perfectly good reason.

In cases like those, generally nobody complains -- except the occasional over-enthusiastic newcomer who has just learned the no-double-posting rule but hasn't figured out that the rule isn't supposed to be universally applied!

... So Here's My Question
I've actually been puzzling over this for at least a year now, trying to figure out if I should suggest to Nathaniel that the no-double-posting rule should be updated somehow.

I'm just not sure what exactly it should say. The current form is

Do not post multiple messages consecutively in the same topic. If your message is the most recent one in a topic, simply edit it if you have additional things to add.

This has the great virtue of simplicity. Every time I try to re-word it, I end up wandering off into discussions of special cases that get so long that I even bore myself -- and then the rewording doesn't look like an improvement over the original, so then I just give up on changing it.

I think the "no double-posting rule" is actually more of a "bias against unconsidered double-posting" -- something like:

- Don't double-post without an adequate reason.

- If you aren't sure if your reason is adequate, please edit your previous post instead.

- If other forum members ask you to stop double-posting, then please consider the possibility that your double-posting is causing some unnecessary annoyance.

Trying to get any more specific than that with a limited-case no-double-posting rule seems like it's too tricky to attempt. As we saw above, there are edge cases like Period1GliderGun's string of six posts. confocaloid thought it was unnecessary to have that many separate posts, and probably had a good point there (and it seems like P1GG was okay with going along with that). Sokwe thought that the date range was wide enough that six separate posts were probably okay in that case -- and probably also had a good point.

Seems like a proposed revision of the no-double-posting rule probably shouldn't attempt to draw a bright line between confocaloid's opinion and Sokwe's opinion -- because then we'd have to figure out a clear way to describe where exactly that line is drawn, that isn't so long and convoluted that nobody will read or understand that part of the rules.

[Chris857]

I think the "no double-posting rule" is actually more of a "bias against unconsidered double-posting" -- something like:

I think I agree with this, and with being brief since it's already rule 3-(a) we don't want to get too wordy. I think this reflects the reality of posting, that sometimes the good reason is either the importance of the new post, the time elapsed, or even just the length of the existing post getting too long.

Maybe word the one part as "Don't double-post without a good reason"?

[confocaloid]

I think the existing old wording of that forum rule already tells what it is supposed to tell to newcomers.
The rule basically tells to edit the last post, instead of multiposting. The exceptions are exceptions. Those who know the rules and still doublepost probably (hopefully) would be able to explain why they are doing so.

[Vort]

...
I think the "no double-posting rule" is actually more of a "bias against unconsidered double-posting" -- something like:
- Don't double-post without an adequate reason.
...

Problem with such statement is that adequacy is subjective.
It is hard to prove whether something is adequate or not.
In the extreme case newcomer may say: my reason was adequate - I posted because I wanted to.

Criteria should be more measurable.


I think main reason why double-posting is undesirable is because it allows to amplify negative effects of low value contributions.
Because value is difficult to measure, following approximation can be used:
Person can't quickly produce large amount of useful information.

English is not my native language, so I can't make high quality replacement for this rule, but I think something like this can be used:

Do not post small or frequent consequitive messages in the same thread.

[confocaloid]

[...]
Because value is difficult to measure, following approximation can be used:
Person can't quickly produce large amount of useful information.
[...]

Agreed.

[...] I think something like this can be used:

Do not post small or frequent consequitive messages in the same thread.

Agreed, although I believe this is mostly covered by the existing forum rules ("this is an academic forum, not a chat or microblogging platform").

[Citation needed]

Please also remember that some users have their own sandbox threads.

[confocaloid]

FYI: if you notice that someone unnecessarily made five or more posts in a row, it might be an interesting possibility to show the following pattern to them:

Code: Select all

x = 333, y = 106, rule = B3/S234w
3o7b3o7b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o27b3o17b3o7b3o7b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o7b3o7b
3o17b3o37b3o7b3o7b3o$obo7bobo7bobo17bobo17bobo17bobo17bobo27bobo17bobo
7bobo7bobo17bobo17bobo17bobo7bobo7bobo17bobo37bobo7bobo7bobo$3o7b3o7b
3o17b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o27b3o17b3o7b3o7b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o7b3o7b3o17b3o
37b3o7b3o7b3o8$3o17b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o7b3o17b3o27b3o27b3o17b3o17b
3o17b3o17b3o37b3o$obo17bobo17bobo17bobo17bobo17bobo7bobo17bobo27bobo
27bobo17bobo17bobo17bobo17bobo37bobo$3o17b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o7b3o
17b3o27b3o27b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o37b3o8$3o7b3o7b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o17b
3o17b3o7b3o27b3o27b3o17b3o17b3o7b3o7b3o17b3o37b3o7b3o7b3o$obo7bobo7bob
o17bobo17bobo17bobo17bobo17bobo7bobo27bobo27bobo17bobo17bobo7bobo7bobo
17bobo37bobo7bobo7bobo$3o7b3o7b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o7b3o27b3o27b
3o17b3o17b3o7b3o7b3o17b3o37b3o7b3o7b3o8$20b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o27b3o
27b3o27b3o17b3o17b3o37b3o37b3o$20bobo17bobo17bobo17bobo17bobo27bobo27b
obo27bobo17bobo17bobo37bobo37bobo$20b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o27b3o27b3o
27b3o17b3o17b3o37b3o37b3o8$20b3o27b3o7b3o17b3o17b3o27b3o27b3o37b3o7b3o
17b3o37b3o7b3o7b3o17b3o7b3o7b3o$20bobo27bobo7bobo17bobo17bobo27bobo27b
obo37bobo7bobo17bobo37bobo7bobo7bobo17bobo7bobo7bobo$20b3o27b3o7b3o17b
3o17b3o27b3o27b3o37b3o7b3o17b3o37b3o7b3o7b3o17b3o7b3o7b3o21$100b3o7b3o
7b3o17b3o7b3o7b3o17b3o7b3o7b3o17b3o7b3o7b3o$100bobo7bobo7bobo17bobo7bo
bo7bobo17bobo7bobo7bobo17bobo7bobo7bobo$100b3o7b3o7b3o17b3o7b3o7b3o17b
3o7b3o7b3o17b3o7b3o7b3o8$100b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o47b3o$100bobo17bobo
17bobo17bobo17bobo47bobo$100b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o47b3o8$100b3o7b3o7b
3o17b3o17b3o17b3o7b3o7b3o27b3o$100bobo7bobo7bobo17bobo17bobo17bobo7bob
o7bobo27bobo$100b3o7b3o7b3o17b3o17b3o17b3o7b3o7b3o27b3o8$100b3o37b3o
17b3o37b3o27b3o$100bobo37bobo17bobo37bobo27bobo$100b3o37b3o17b3o37b3o
27b3o8$100b3o37b3o7b3o7b3o17b3o7b3o7b3o27b3o$100bobo37bobo7bobo7bobo
17bobo7bobo7bobo27bobo$100b3o37b3o7b3o7b3o17b3o7b3o7b3o27b3o!

Please also remember that some users have their own sandbox threads.

Yes those should be kept in mind.

Although I'm not sure whether proliferation of "this is my sandbox" type threads is really such a good idea.
(The forums exist so that people can communicate with each other. Communication implies some efforts, to make sure that one isn't simply "talking to themselves" in isolation.)
It is better to avoid things that encourage people to get stuck in the talking-to-themselves mode.

I think the basic rule of not making unnecessary multiposts should apply to those sandbox threads, too.
(Really, if someone else is curious about what you share in the thread, they will probably go from time to time to check the most recent post.
If you have something significantly different from what was posted previously, and believed to be of some interest to people other than yourself, then it may be reasonable to add a new post.

And if you don't yet have anything to contribute of interest to people other than yourself, then it is better to avoid posting for a while, even in a sandbox thread, and instead spend some time and efforts "lurking" (searching and reading about what is known). This is also covered by the forum rules.)

[rowett]

I have often double (or more) posted in the LifeViewer threads. Typically it's because I'm responding to different bug reports or questions in those threads in a batch and mixing the responses in a single reply makes it harder to follow what's going on. Additionally, having multiple topics in a single reply negates the use of the "like" feature - which I find super useful as an abbreviated way of someone saying they ackowledged the fix or response.

So whilst the general rule is valid there are certainly exceptional cases.