Long? So What?

[Blankshield]

Personally I find them quite useful, as another 'tag' much like the forum it's sitting in, telling me more from the subject line without needing to break into the thread.  If I see [long] in a subject line, I know that there's good odds of a lot of information in there and if I drill down, I should expect to spend some time on it.  If I don't have that time, I'm better off skipping it for later.

Similarly the [split from X] tags.

I don't have as much time to read the Forge as I would like, and to me the tags are a useful way of sorting not only by content (the subject line) but by time investment (number of posts in the thread; [long] tag).

James

[Callan S.]

I observe minimal effect. I don't see any intellectual difference in the title (similar to the way the forges color pattern means nothing, it's just something looked past)

I also see some practical use in terms of bracing. I'm sure weve all gone to lift something and found it quite a bit heavier than expected. If I start reading a post and then realise it scrolls on and on I'm stuck between having put some thought in but having to get through so much more that I wasn't ready for. That doesn't serve me or the poster very well. However, if I'm braced for it because I was forwarned, no problem.

[clehrich]

I have tended to use the [long] suffix a good deal, because I have a habit of starting threads with essays that, if printed, would be 5 or 6 pages of single-spaced prose.

A few remarks on what has been stated thus far:

1. Based on the various posts in this thread, it doesn't look like [long] has a great deal of effect on whether a post gets read by a particular reader or not.  It does perhaps affect when a reader chooses to do the reading.  

2. I suspect that among "old hands" around these parts, such suffixes or whatever say a lot primarily because of their combination with the author's byline.  So if you see that clehrich has posted a thread-starter as [long], you know I'm going to be yammering for quite some time.  In other cases you might know that [long] means more than a screenful, but probably fewer than three.  And so forth.

3. Whether a [long] post gets read, I suspect, has most to do with the author, with the topic a close second.  I would also guess that the reverse is true when the [long] marker is not used.  For me as a poster, that's the whole point: if you want to read my extended thinking on something, and have a good discussion about it, you will want to start by reading my extended thinking so you can tell me what a moron I am.  If I just ask a question or something, I don't want to attract some particular attention to the fact that it's me posting and not somebody else, because it doesn't probably make a damn bit of difference.

As you see, I tend to go on rather long....

4. I do not think that absolute rules about such message-tagging are a good idea.  What is almost guaranteed to happen is that some readers will get confused, or make mistakes, or whatever, and get smacked by Ron-wannabe self-appointed moderators.  I know that sounds bitchy, but you have all seen this happen.  Even when Ron then steps in and tells the self-appointee to stop it, you now have three or four posts about how to post on the Forge, none of which needed to happen.  All this will simply create one more reason for folks to sneer at the Forge's "elitism."

[M. J. Young]

I don't have a problem with the [long] tag, really. There have been a few times when I have shuddered to see it, but I make a sincere effort at least to skim every post on the forums I follow and every post on the threads I open on those forums I browse. In the forums I browse, I am unlikely to open a thread anyway, but "[long]" will confirm that decision. In the forums I follow, it may mean I refill my Coke before I begin, or even that I stretch my legs and get some of my chores done if I'm already tired.

I find that it's rather inconsistently used. Sometimes I've seen it on a new thread from someone who always writes long posts, and not noticed this one to be longer than usual (which is probably why I don't use it--I know that in my mouth, all stories are long, so it's rather redundant to put "long" next to a thread by me, and I'd probably do better marking those that are "short"). I have often seen the tag, resigned myself to dig in, and then been quite surprised at how short the post was.

Thus I'm inclined to think that there's sometimes reason to use it, but people should think twice before they do.

I also agree that the "[split from X]" tags are often useful (and particularly when "X" is linked in the first post, and that "[long]" seems to be a similar application of the principle. I don't think I would make any rules about such tags, either requiring or forbidding or defining them. For one thing, on the CGG list we used to have a long list of tags and what they meant, but they were almost never used, and even when they were they weren't always helpful.

I don't know if that helps.

Gee, Chris, do you write long posts?

--M. J. Young

[clehrich]

I find that it's rather inconsistently used. Sometimes I've seen it on a new thread from someone who always writes long posts, and not noticed this one to be longer than usual (which is probably why I don't use it--I know that in my mouth, all stories are long, so it's rather redundant to put "long" next to a thread by me, and I'd probably do better marking those that are "short"). I have often seen the tag, resigned myself to dig in, and then been quite surprised at how short the post was.

Yes, good point.  Come to think of it, what I generally do with the really long posts is state in the first couple of lines that this is a very long post.  Doesn't help those with 28k modems, of course.  And as I turn it over in my mind, I'm not sure there's much difference between the first-line version and the subject-line one, at least as I use it.  And if my use is different from M.J.'s, and we're both a tad long-fingered (type version of long-winded?), then I'm not sure that [long] will mean much that just the author's name doesn't already signify.

One note on [split from].  I periodically vanish for a month or more, and when I come back I see 6000 posts.  If people used [split from] consistently, it would help a great deal in wading through a big mass.  It strikes me that one of the things new members complain about is the sheer overwhelming quantity, and some [split from]-type organization might help with that.  Of course, so would being more consistent about what happens in the first paragraph if you're reviving an old topic or whatever, so there you are.

Gee, Chris, do you write long posts?

No, never.  Why do you ask?

<what's the smiley-code for sticking your tongue out and going, "neener neener nyah nyah"?>

[Mike Holmes]

Tags are great when used well. The long tag, however, is pretty useless locally. For one, as Andrew points out, it really doesn't tell you anything important in terms of how much a page load is going to deliver, given that multiple posts come on a page. So it doesn't help with bandwidth considerations. Further, it seems to me that most people who use it are coming from other boards where seven paragraphs is relatively long. Here we see posts like that every single day, and people post them without the long tag. So the tag doesn't seem to have any use even in telling us how long the first post is, really. That is, as a filter, it's pretty faulty to use it here.

I don't think this needs a rule at all, however, I do regularly point out to people who use the tag the limited usefulness of the long tag hereabouts. Basically, it seems a matter of continued improvement of communication, not something that needs to be mandated in any way.

I wholeheartedly encourage other people to use tags to make for easier filtering, scanning, etc. I think the only thing one can ask is to try to be consistent with the other tag uses on the board.

BTW, instead of "Split From" as a tag, I suggest that people use "Was" more. Split From can remain a moderator tag for posts that were actually split off from the original thread (making them easier to find when they dissapear). While "was" is pretty traditional in terms of when a thread transforms on many lists. Not to mention it's just shorter. Just a tip.

Mike

[clehrich]

So the tag doesn't seem to have any use even in telling us how long the first post is, really. That is, as a filter, it's pretty faulty to use it here.

Between you and M.J., I think I'm totally convinced now that this [long] tag isn't useful.

Can I strongly recommend, though, that somewhere near the top of the actual long post, one should put in large, bold letters that the post is very long?  Since as you say it doesn't help with bandwidth anyway, this would be an indication that maybe this is something to come back to if one is strapped for time.

I also think that the term "long" ought to be used for things that take multiple pages.  For example, Jay (Silmenume), M.J., you (Mike), and I post a fair number of these; Ralph (Valamir) recently posted a lengthy essay; and so on.

BTW, instead of "Split From" as a tag, I suggest that people use "Was" more. Split From can remain a moderator tag

Oops.  Yes, right.

Hail Mike!

[Mike Holmes]

Hmmm. Know what? If you're putting in a novel, then you're probably using Word or some such program with a Word Count function. Instead of saying that it's long, how about putting in the actual word count? That's a pretty objective measure of length that can be used for comparison.

If you don't want to bother, then a paragraph count?

Otherwise, how long is long? Basically, what I'm saying is that as a poster, I have no idea when to use long and when not to do so. Without some criteria, how do I know when to use it.

I would say that if the idea of a paragraph count doesn't make sense in your post, then it's probably not long, by local standards.


Hmmm. It occurs to me that it might be possible to rig the code here to display the length (in terms of memory) of the first post. Again, however, this is all sorta baffling - to me it's long if the responses go over two pages. There is no such thing as a long single post.

Mike