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.

Yeah. I hate to say it, but I'd be hopeless at summarizing. Someone asked me the other day what was going on in Natter, and my response was basically, "Uh...I dunno. Stuff?"

And I agree that when people have asked for a summary, it's been provided. We don't need a whole institutionalized thing. It's not like Natter is, you know, important.

I think that it's okay to miss stuff is inherent in Natter. That's why it's called Natter, and not Terribly Important Things You Need to Know.

I insist on large batches of grumpy East Coasters backing you up before I give up on this entertaining idea.

I'm on the East Coast, I'm grumpy thanks to lack of sleep (seriously. You have no idea.), and I'm willing to back them up. I mean, what if the Companion of the moment skipped and skimmed like a flat rock across the still waters of the Murray to get there? (...This picture doesn't make me any happier to be at work.) What if their windows of opportunity for the posting are tiny things? What if I happen to numberslut at 2 in the morning, and all the summary you get is "Phwooaargh"?

Fraught. I should definitely be putting that into a sentence about now, but again with the sleep deprivation. Still, fraught. Oh, and Phwooaargh.

Yeah.