Dawn ,'The Killer In Me'
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
Here's one grumpy East Coaster, although I'm not sure I've ever number-slutted so my opinion probably isn't worth much.
That said, if I slut by accident, I'm not going to go back and try to remember what I've read before. I skip and skim with regularity to save time and continue to be employed, and having to recap would defeat that process.
I'm not down with the summarizing for the simple reason that I cannot be trusted to be able to summarize the previous 100 posts, unless I've just been trying to power through them, in which case I'll be mildly huffy and therefore not wanting to summarize them. But that's just me.
No on the summaries.
I'd be terrible at summarizing because I'm only going to be able to remember the shiny things like discussion of voter turnout and completely forget the discussion of, um consignment shops, et cetera.
There is a technological solution to the summaries possible. But, due to the wetware, it would not work.
It would not be that tough to add a new field to the posts table (whatever it may be called) "summary". Anyone who think their post is worth summarizing could simply fill in the summary field which would be short. Summary view would , of course, show only the non-blank summary fields.
The problem is that
A) Most people would not take the trouble to fill in the summary field.
B) Probably those making the most important posts would be least likely.
C) And the summary field would be used for various sorts of jokes, and added snark. So anyone trying acess a summary view would get few summaries and a lot if injokes.
Ultimately, I think we are better off just sticking to skipping and skimming. Summaries run into the human component; as I said it's a wetware problem.
When a summary has been requested in the past some poster has provided it without a formal system. Don't think the system is broke.
Another thought: Maybe number slutting (or just hitting) means you do a quick precis on the last one hundred posts
That's assuming you read the last 100 post. (Skipper and skimmer here.)
I'm not down with the summarizing for the simple reason that I cannot be trusted to be able to summarize the previous 100 posts, unless I've just been trying to power through them, in which case I'll be mildly huffy and therefore not wanting to summarize them.
I'm Burrell here.
My other problem with the number slutting is I almost never notice the number of my posts.
I insist on large batches of grumpy East Coasters backing you up before I give up on this entertaining idea.
Grumpy East Coaster checking in here.
Not everyone can Natter. Not everyone will Natter. It's just one thread. The John H Natter Diet allows people to jump into the conversation, and if something wasn't covered in either Beep Me, Press, or the last 50 posts, they can always just ask about it.
Hate the summaries. I almost never notice my post numbers, and furthermore don't especially relish being given assignments in a place I come for fun.
Also, I'm with ita on not really wanting to be summarized either.
I understand where you're coming from on trying to ease this, Hec, but really, it's up to an individual to work out how and how much of any thread they can handle. There are people who are intimidated by the volume in the show threads too. What do we do then? There's a million ways to handle it, and there will be no pop quiz at the end.
So you miss stuff. It'll be okay.