Limit on the number of quotes when replying exceeded

[Basil B]

Wanted to reply to some one who replied to one of my posts but they had cut it up into 4 quotes so replying to it (without altering it) exceeds the permitted four quotes, any suggestions how to get round this?

[george]

In this case I suggest:

Instead of quoting, just press the Reply button or post in the fast reply box.

[notmyself]

In this case I suggest:

Instead of quoting, just press the Reply button or post in the fast reply box.

Forum of this size should be using supposed industry standard.

Within forum...

In this case I suggest:

Quotes indented in red are globally known to be outside of forum and should contain a link to source while indented blue does not.

So in effect it is more legible....

3. If possible please proofread your post first, poor grammar and spelling can make the post difficult to understand.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

Also using the board rules...

5. Please do not quote multiple nested quotes. Quote only the relevant section that you are discussing. Moderators will snip excessively long nested quotes.

There is not a limit just on nested quotes but also on embedded quotes within a post and this can (does) make it difficult to read for other members. Perhaps I'm just speaking for myself but the restrictions on quoting sources with any mind on continuity should be addressed.

Have a great day in any case.

[attrayant]

I came here to start a topic on this.

I've recently had to break replies into several posts because of the quote tag limit. I'm not sure how that is meant to improve readability.

Especially in some threads that are full of ignorance (vaccine and climate change threads come to mind), a point-by-point rebuttal is called for, but the quote limit make this impossible. Not quoting at all is out of the question as these kinds of topics are fast moving and many posts often slip between the original and the reply. The result of not quoting is that the reply will be nonsense without context.

What exactly is the reason for limiting the number of quote tags? I'm on a half dozen different message boards that don't limit the number of quote tags and there doesn't seem to be any problem.

My general philosophy is that a limiting or restrictive feature should always be off by default, unless there is a really good reason for turning it on. For quote tags, I'm not seeing that reason.

Edited September 3, 2014 by attrayant

[george]

Instead of quoting, use the Quick reply box and do selective quoting or rephrasing. We do need to have a limit of the number of nested quotes, otherwise members would quote in absurdum, and the topics would be very hard to read.

[smokie36]

Instead of quoting, use the Quick reply box and do selective quoting or rephrasing. We do need to have a limit of the number of nested quotes, otherwise members would quote in absurdum, and the topics would be very hard to read.

Quite right and that is what used to happen before the limit was brought in.

Too many lazy and/or ignorant posters.

[attrayant]

...otherwise members would quote in absurdum, and the topics would be very hard to read.

This already happens. In fact it happens quite a lot. Members often quote entire lengthy posts when they only want to address one or two specific points within the post. I usually don't read these posts because it's pointless to re-read an entire wall of text just to figure out which minor point the person is addressing.

I think the opposite is true - parsing-out the quotes out improves readability. This is the law of unintended consequences: the original intention may have been to make posts easier to read, but in practice the opposite is happening.

And like I said, the limit is easy enough to defeat by breaking up the reply into several separate posts, so it seems pointless to have a feature turned on that can be so easily defeated.

[attrayant]

Instead of quoting, use the Quick reply box and do selective quoting or rephrasing. We do need to have a limit of the number of nested quotes, otherwise members would quote in absurdum, and the topics would be very hard to read.

Quite right and that is what used to happen before the limit was brought in.

Too many lazy and/or ignorant posters.

I think you're talking about a different problem, or possibly you're not understanding the problem I'm talking about.

Multiple quoting takes a lot of coding work - lazy posters don't want to do it, so they just quote the entire post without bothering to use the quote tags to tease-out the specific bits they're actually replying to. This results in huge walls of mind-numbing text that makes your eyes glaze over. You can find lots of examples of this all over the board right now. Limiting the number of quote tags does nothing to help or prevent this.

I'm suggesting that allowing us to selectively use more quote tags will get rid of the enormous wall of text replies and improve readability. My example is here. I used three quote tags to break up the original post. If I had just used one quote as you're suggesting, readers would have to sift through the entire original post, then read all my replies and try to mentally piece them together. But in this case I wanted to reply to five different points in the original message, so I needed to use five quote tags. Since the board doesn't allow that many per post, I had to spread my reply across two posts.

[smokie36]

I understand completely....its just that people will simply abuse it same as they did before.

Warning after warning was made that limits would be set and they didn't listen.

[attrayant]

Could you link me to an example of what you'rte talking about? I'm having a hard time understanding how using quote tags to reduce the amount of quoted text causes a post to become more difficult to read. It should be the opposite.

[notmyself]

I understand completely....its just that people will simply abuse it same as they did before.

Warning after warning was made that limits would be set and they didn't listen.

I think member Attrayant is talking about embedded quotes rather than nested quotes Smokie.

[attrayant]

I think he knows that. I was pretty detailed in my description and I even linked to an example. Nested quotes is a different kettle of fish, and I agree that those are usually more confusing than not.

[notmyself]

The forum code may be such that it cannot differentiate between nested and embedded quotes.

[attrayant]

I'm not sure what version we're on here, but IPB (since v2.0) has had a setting in the admin panel to automatically remove embedded quotes from replies. When it's enabled and you quote a post that has quotes, then those quotes are removed, so you are only quoting the person you are replying to. I would be absolutely tickled pink if we could turn this feature on here, because nested quotes are almost always a disaster. I think we'd be fine without them. Just let us have regular, non-nested quotes. The moderators would spend a lot less time deleting coding accidents.

I remember back around 2008 or so, too many nested quotes sometimes caused browsers to crash. That may be why the limit was originally set here. But I don't think that's a problem any more.

I think it would be best to turn off nested quotes altogether. Then, the limit on regular quotes wouldn't be needed any more.

[smokie36]

The forum code may be such that it cannot differentiate between nested and embedded quotes.

This is what I meant....sorry for confusion.

[notmyself]

The forum code may be such that it cannot differentiate between nested and embedded quotes.

This is what I meant....sorry for confusion.

Which is why I suggested using red/blue intended text. This method is used all over the place and actually makes the post easier to read though it needs to be done manually here as there is a glitch in the coding if using the toggle button to access the formatting feature buttons. I don't find the quote limit to be a real issue on the main forum body but in another place where posts can be quite extensive it can be problematic. On contentious issues that require a link to back up a claim it is better to highlight (quote) from an external source along with a link rather than provide the link alone.

[notmyself]

Have a bit of time on my hands as I'm in the UK for a little while longer doing sod all, so figure I'd make a proposal...

Let's directly quote from this thread.

Instead of quoting, use the Quick reply box and do selective quoting or rephrasing. We do need to have a limit of the number of nested quotes, otherwise members would quote in absurdum, and the topics would be very hard to read.

The question is about the number of

[quote] these
[/quote]

that exist independently on a post.

I'm not sure what version we're on here, but IPB (since v2.0) has had a setting in the admin panel to automatically remove embedded quotes from replies. When it's enabled and you quote a post that has quotes, then those quotes are removed, so you are only quoting the person you are replying to. I would be absolutely tickled pink if we could turn this feature on here, because nested quotes are almost always a disaster. I think we'd be fine without them. Just let us have regular, non-nested quotes. The moderators would spend a lot less time deleting coding accidents.

Not if a member cannot debug their post.

Generally, in another place, I use the format described in the above post which sometimes are not deleted for breaking forum rules.

Forum Netiquette

1. Please do not post in all capital letters, bold, unusual fonts, sizes or colors. It can be difficult to read.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

Please may I post in colour at times to make my posts more legible

[attrayant]

You can certainly use color to highlight a word or statement, or add emphasis to something. That's not what the rule is talking about. The rule is there so that people don't make entire posts in 48 point bold pink, red and orange. In other words, being generally obnoxious. I use color quite often, but sparingly, to add emphasis and aid readability.