I'm noticing lots of people are tacking "long" on the end of their subject lines when they post something that is more than a couple paragraphs.

Personally, I think everyone should stop doing that. A post's length has no bearing on its subject matter. Who cares if it's one paragraph or twenty pages? Does anyone actually eschew topics that have this "long" descriptor? If so, why? If you ask me, there are better uses for a post's subject line than informing the potential reader of the post's length.

Just a thought.

ethan_greer wrote: I'm noticing lots of people are tacking "long" on the end of their subject lines when they post something that is more than a couple paragraphs.

Personally, I think everyone should stop doing that. A post's length has no bearing on its subject matter. Who cares if it's one paragraph or twenty pages? Does anyone actually eschew topics that have this "long" descriptor? If so, why? If you ask me, there are better uses for a post's subject line than informing the potential reader of the post's length.

Just a thought.

In general, I appreciate a LONG tag, though I admit it doesn't really effect whether or not I read the post or not.

However, I have noticed that sometimes people do add a LONG tag on a post that really isn't long. There's a current thread, for example, that's only like 7 paragraphs, but the author threw a LONG tag onto the subject. I figure, if I can fit the entire post on my screen without scrolling, than it isn't really "long".

So I guess I'm arguing for continued, discretionary use of LONG tags.

Actually, as for me, I *prefer* posts with "long" tacked onto the subject - I'd almost always rather read the extended version rather then some summarized variant of same.

I guess that "long" really just tends to translate into "more in-depth" for me.

-joshua

Hello,

I'm interested in anyone's input about this topic, but specifically not any posts that merely state "I like it" or "I don't like it," even with reasons.

I'm interested in how anyone thinks this habit of thread-titling affects the goals of the Forge. Please weigh in if you'd like.

Best,
Ron

Like most things in a (mostly) free form social environment i think that this cuts both ways. The following is my (quick and dirty) breakdown of what this does.

1. Since we have no official definition of what makes a post "long" each person will be providing his or her own subjective definition. While this really limits the value of supplying a "long" tag it by no means makes it useless.
2. It provides information about the poster. First, that they believe that they have put a signifigant amount of time (probably more than average for them) into the post. Second, it provides us with a data point about what they consider to be a "long" post.
3. The "Long" tag provides a warning. The post will take more time to read than a non-"Long" post by the same author. Again, note that this could mean the post is 400 words or 4000 depending on the author.

From a personal standpoint there are times when i will avoid a thread with a "long" tag because i simply do not feel up to getting into a serious discussion.

Thomas

The "long" tag's best use is for emails that might be accessed through a slow dialup connection or by a bandwidth restricted ISP. By accessing the email titles only, the person who has these limitations can then choose to not download the long email until a later date or time.

I think there's no need for a "long" tag for a post in a bulletin board, because usually the entire thread or the first X posts are shown by the bulletin board software and a thread of posts automatically becomes longer as people post to it. A short question could easily inspire dozens or hundreds of posts, and a post that's marked "long", (for example a setting description that asks no questions and is almost an advert, could have very few replies and be smaller than other threads.

Some posts that have been marked as "long" by the writer, would probably have been better marked as "essay" (or similar?). For example, Ron's post on the Whole Model, Valamir's post on player negotiation and so on. This would better indicate that the post is literally a essay rather than more usual initial post that's asking questions.

A subject line is like a mini-advertisement that says, "Hey, read this!" Tacking the "long" descriptor on the end of the subject line, on the other hand, is a warning that says, "Hey, don't read this!" Seems counterproductive to me, that's all. Also, the use of "long" often says more about the poster than the post, making it basically just noise in the subject line. That's my main issue, but it's not really much more than a pet peeve, I guess.

Whether this habit has any effect on the goals of the Forge... Well, the only thing I can think of is, the "long" descriptor is, as I said, basically a warning. So if someone new to the Forge comes along and sees all the "long" posts, he or she may be put off from participating before reading anything. But I sort of doubt that's happening with any regularity.

I like Andrew's "Essay" idea. That, I think, would be much more useful than "long."

"Long" vs. "Essay"

Cheese and rice. This place can get pedantic, but this is ridiculous. Are we going to end up chastising people for using "Long" and tell them to use "Essay" instead?

If a poster feels that he needs to put "Long" in his subject lines, then he should do so, and he shouldn't get jumped on for doing it.

Relax, Fred. No one's jumping on anyone.

My post seeks understanding and expresses my opinion, nothing more.

I'm not claiming that they are.

I just see no value to the question whatsoever.

Hello,

All comments noted and logged so far! Any other input, specifically about how this might or might not affect the actual Forge?

Actually, I just realized that maybe I didn't make myself clear in my previous post. It's not the [long] tag which is the issue. It's any tag which identifies "about this" stuff for a thread title.

I'll tell you my preference as content moderator: it is to use a simple on-topic phrase as thread title, with a bracketed prefix of a game title if that's appropriate, and leaving it off when not. For example:

[Dark Sun] Can you really be a naked warrior?

[My Life with Master] Trouble with the dice mechanic

On-line chat play vs. MMORPG

Korean philosophy as the basis for a resolution system

[RazorGrrl] Need some feedback on an experience point system

That sort of thing, without any further reference to whether the content is long or short, fat or thin, black or white, earth or martian. But I also recognize that this can't be policy, just a preference on my part.

What's up for discussion is whether bracketed suffixes which tell the reader about the content in a meta-sense (earth or martian, etc) should be disallowed here at the Forge.

Further thoughts solicited.

Best,
Ron

I don't think bracketed suffixes should be disallowed by the official Forge rules; I don't see that including such a rule would make much difference with regard to the Forge fulfilling its purpose.

Custom, preference, fine, but rules? No. Rules imply punishments, and what are you going to do if someone refuses to abide? It's trivial.

Hi Fred,

The Forge has rules. They are enforced in ways that aren't usually seen on the internet, and which rely on the substantial majority respecting the rules out of mutualistic interest.

If this "no suffix" thing is to be a rule, then it'll be enforced. In fact, you'd be expected to be part of that enforcement as a community member. That's what the Forge is like and what it's for, and I suggest you consider that point.

So everyone, the discussion is still open. Please address the precise point that I raised in my earlier post, if you're interested in the issue.

Best,
Ron

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

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.

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."

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

M. J. Young wrote: 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.

Gee, Chris, do you write long posts?

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

Mike Holmes wrote: 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.

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

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