How do you decide when to respond to a post?

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

There are tons of threads out there where I made the last post. Often I'll go back repeatedly to see if someone noticed how clever and brilliant I was... but frequently nobody seems to. I like to chalk it up to everyone being stunned into awestruck silence by my rapier wit and uncanny eloquence. This way I don't have to feel bad.

Good system, I find. Used it many times.
Yup. You think there's no answer cuz ... well, there's just no answer. You've deposited the definitive final word.
Not.

 

[Lex]

I sometimes miss direct responses to me if I am not actively following a thread also (as NIC_160 noted). I sometimes see a direct response and may not respond if I find myself in total agreement with what the person said (or if there have been 2 days of posts before I noticed it). I also am not posting that much these days. It's a combination--I rarely totally avoid someone, although I ignore a few.

 

[B_big dirigible]

Do any of you have some sort of triage you use to decide which members you interact with? I'm not talking about content, I'm talking about personality. By that, I mean I'm sure we all have some subjects we prefer not to discuss. But if the same question was asked of you, by two different members, are there some for whom you would answer it and some for whom you would not?

Good question.

Speaking only for myself, I don't think so.

Sometimes the poster does make a difference. There are a few here who I consider to be mere wastes of oxygen, and I rarely read their posts, let alone answer them. But that's only a few. And there are one or two who I believe to have some genuine psychological problems, and I avoid needling them even when, objectively, they seem to deserve it.

So some posters are special cases and get special treatment. More generally, I may not respond to even a specific question for a variety of reasons.

It's not uncommon for me to never return to threads in which I've posted. Sometimes the thread becomes too silly or tedious to bother with; sometimes it gets hijacked and turns into a grabass thread, and I lose interest. And sometimes a thread turns into a virtual car trip with a virtual back seat full of virtual six-year-olds who have just learned some vile rhyming song, and sing it over and over and over. When that happens, I'm likely to bail.

So, naturally, if I've stopped reading a thread, I'll miss subsequent posts.

There's another specialized situation - breaking up an LPSG feeding frenzy. Sometimes a poster, often a n00b, starts a thread with an interesting (or at least not ridiculous) observation or question, but is immediately "baited by the rabble's curse". That soon snowballs into a sycophantic pile-on. In that case I may just point out that the OP isn't at all ridiculous, or has previously been misunderstood. I don't usually stick around after that, as I consider that after I've (figuratively) knocked a few heads together, my work's been done. So, again, I'd miss what could be relevant follow-up posts in those threads.

 

[DC_DEEP]

There are a few members here that I would prefer not to respond to. Not everbody is worth my time. If I already know before getting into an argument that the argument is not going to be any fun I'll try to avoid said argument, and if I already know before giving an explanation that it's not going to be understood or interpreted correctly, then why bother?

Well, that's pretty obvious. And although there are some on board with whom I rarely agree, at least we have civil discourse. I don't know that I've earned the moniker "troll" or "idiot" in anyone's opinion. Can you honestly tell me that those with whom you choose not to discuss or debate don't fall into either of those categories?

Good question.

Speaking only for myself, I don't think so.

Sometimes the poster does make a difference. There are a few here who I consider to be mere wastes of oxygen, and I rarely read their posts, let alone answer them. But that's only a few. And there are one or two who I believe to have some genuine psychological problems, and I avoid needling them even when, objectively, they seem to deserve it.

So some posters are special cases and get special treatment. More generally, I may not respond to even a specific question for a variety of reasons.

It's not uncommon for me to never return to threads in which I've posted. Sometimes the thread becomes too silly or tedious to bother with; sometimes it gets hijacked and turns into a grabass thread, and I lose interest. And sometimes a thread turns into a virtual car trip with a virtual back seat full of virtual six-year-olds who have just learned some vile rhyming song, and sing it over and over and over. When that happens, I'm likely to bail.

So, naturally, if I've stopped reading a thread, I'll miss subsequent posts.

There's another specialized situation - breaking up an LPSG feeding frenzy. Sometimes a poster, often a n00b, starts a thread with an interesting (or at least not ridiculous) observation or question, but is immediately "baited by the rabble's curse". That soon snowballs into a sycophantic pile-on. In that case I may just point out that the OP isn't at all ridiculous, or has previously been misunderstood. I don't usually stick around after that, as I consider that after I've (figuratively) knocked a few heads together, my work's been done. So, again, I'd miss what could be relevant follow-up posts in those threads.

:biggrin1: I think our batting average is about 500, big d.

Lex, I don't seem to be able to get my point across. Watch for my PM, maybe I can explain it "off-board."

 

[36DD]

I hope this doesn't turn out to sound like a request for sympathy or a whine or rant; it truly isn't... I'm just puzzled, maybe a little intrigued.

I usually try to answer questions and comments directed at me in any given post, regardless of who may have asked or commented. And in general, most LPSG members will respond if I direct a question or comment at them.

There are a few, however, who seem to make a concerted effort to avoid direct responses to me.

In numerous posts, I have made supportive statements, asked pertinent questions, or complimented each of those members. Only one has made any response to me, and it was a rather tart correction (after I had made what I thought was a humorous follow-up post, complete with smilie.)

Again, it doesn't hurt my feelings or make me angry, it just makes me curious. Another example would be, when one of those specific members makes a statement in a thread, I ask a clarification question that gets ignored; 4 or 5 posts later, someone else asks the same question I did, and they get an answer.

Do any of you have some sort of triage you use to decide which members you interact with? I'm not talking about content, I'm talking about personality. By that, I mean I'm sure we all have some subjects we prefer not to discuss. But if the same question was asked of you, by two different members, are there some for whom you would answer it and some for whom you would not?

(No names, please, just speaking in generalities here!)

I haven't posted in awhile 'cause I've only logged in long enough to check my e-mails. I hope that I am not one of those who you feel have ignored you...I said in another thread a while back I would pm you with some things, just been going through alot lately :sad2: and politics are the last thing on my mind. As far as who I decide which members I interact with, I would choose to respond to the one that is considerate of others or at least doesn't reduce himself/herself to the level of doling out insults or name-calling. I can't imagine anyone not responding to your posts for any of those reasons...sometimes people just forget, or maybe like me, they just don't want everyone jumping in with their criticisms just because they have a difference of opinion...I've found it's just not worth it, I'm too tired to respond or to defend myself to those that are rude (not you). I often look for a sense of humor and courtesy.

 

[B_Cocktale]

Of course some posters intrigue me and catch my interest more than others since I know their posts won't be superfluous but more likely topical and weighty.

What I look (from a personal perspective) for before responding is:

1. Interest in topic
2. Knowledge of topic
3. Personal experience in topic
4. a 100% disagreement with what someone has presented as fact

 

[dongalong]

DC DEEP, I've had the same feeling as you of being singled out and ignored, by a few members, I thought that they must have issues with me, it annoyed me for a while but when I started interacting with other more fun members I soon got over it.
They have since started treating me like any other member but still, my loss of respect for those people hasn't gone away.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

I'm fairly random in checking threads, the ones that are at the top of the list are the ones I most usually check because I figure if other people are finding them interesting enough to keep them at the top of the list so will I. The questions I answer are usually ones that are relevant to the topic although I'm fairly whimsical so this depends on my mood. If I think a question is stupid it'll often get a sarcastic answer, and I often can't keep my big mouth shut if I see someone spouting quite obvious bullshit. I don't often comment on threads that would need a long involved answer, life is too short to make a post that needs editing, checking and maybe taking an hour to write-it's a forum on the net nothing is going to be solved here hence I don't often want to take the time to make a post that would involve anything like mental effort

 

[HotBulge]

Do you consider the crossover point at which sending someone a PM to respond may be appropriate? Especially in more active threads where there is a difference of opinion, if I appear to be in a quasi-dialogue with another poster, I'll send a PM to be explicity about a request for a response or to explicitly state my own intentions. Then I'll return the conversation back "on line" through the more public posts. Every once and awhile, it's worth the risk to send out a PM .

 

[DC_DEEP]

I haven't posted in awhile 'cause I've only logged in long enough to check my e-mails. I hope that I am not one of those who you feel have ignored you...
<...>.

Nah, DD, I'm actually clever enough to be able to see the difference. I understand getting too busy to post much. I've actually missed a PM from time to time, or not gotten back to a post I meant to respond to. If I pay you a compliment in a thread, and you say "thanks", that's one thing. If you say "thanks, now leave me alone", that's ok too. If I compliment you in 4 different threads and you never respond to me once, that's something else entirely.

Do you consider the crossover point at which sending someone a PM to respond may be appropriate? Especially in more active threads where there is a difference of opinion, if I appear to be in a quasi-dialogue with another poster, I'll send a PM to be explicity about a request for a response or to explicitly state my own intentions. Then I'll return the conversation back "on line" through the more public posts. Every once and awhile, it's worth the risk to send out a PM .

PMs are lovely, and occasionally a better means of clearing up ambiguities. PM is often your only option to be as specific as you need to be, without causing a riot on the board.

Oh, and biguy, thank you. The PMs you and I have exchanged over the last couple of weeks have really been appreciated.

 

[HazelGod]

There are a few, however, who seem to make a concerted effort to avoid direct responses to me.

My triage process is totally subjective and based in no small part on my general laziness. Essentially, if I think someone has demonstrated intelligence enough to be worth the few minutes of my life spent pressing keys to express my viewpoints, then I will do so.

If not, well...<insert sound of crickets chirping>

 

[dolf250]

Perhaps you are on too many ignore lists.:biggrin1:

Just kidding; I really do not know why people would not get back to you. For myself I know that I sometimes disappear for awhile and may not get back to somebody; but I try if I notice. There is only one person who I would not respond to and that is because my ignore list will not let me view the post to know that there was a question directed to me.

I am still a little unclear on the exact meaning of irony (and am too lazy to look it up at this time in the morning) but is it irony that your topic on a lack of responses has, in less than 24 hours, elicited three pages of responses? If it makes you fell better I opened this thread only because I noticed that it was you who posted it and I enjoy reading most of your posts.

 

[dolf250]

Perhaps you are on too many ignore lists.:biggrin1:

Just kidding; I really do not know why people would not get back to you. For myself I know that I sometimes disappear for awhile and may not get back to somebody; but I try if I notice. There is only one person who I would not respond to and that is because my ignore list will not let me view the post to know that there was a question directed to me.

I am still a little unclear on the exact meaning of irony (and am too lazy to look it up at this time in the morning) but is it irony that your topic on a lack of responses has, in less than 24 hours, elicited three pages of responses? If it makes you fell better I opened this thread only because I noticed that it was you who posted it and I enjoy reading your posts.

 

[jeff black]

Do any of you have some sort of triage you use to decide which members you interact with? I'm not talking about content, I'm talking about personality. By that, I mean I'm sure we all have some subjects we prefer not to discuss. But if the same question was asked of you, by two different members, are there some for whom you would answer it and some for whom you would not?

(No names, please, just speaking in generalities here!)

I try not to avoid anyone or their posts because I really don't like having MY posts ignored...

My responses are usually given to everyone unless I miss the response because the thread moves too fast. 9 times out of ten, the person will get a response back, regardless of who they are. However, if I feel the conversation has gone "over my head", I'm more likely to sit back and attempt to come up with an intelligent response. Depending on the tone of the follow up comment, I will usually respond. I mean, if someone is a flat out peice of dog shit to me, it's likely I won't respond (unless I am in a cranky mood).

In regards to where I post, well.. I post anywhere I feel I can add something ( advice, some "wit", maybe a crude but polite slam).

 

[DC_DEEP]

I think that made sense, but its early, I don't really know.

Kot, sweetie, it did make sense. I have made some similar comments to you before, and your response was gracious. You often do not give yourself enough credit. (That was a compliment. Considering the context, no response is needed, we've already covered that in PM.)

Perhaps you are on too many ignore lists.:biggrin1:

Just kidding; I really do not know why people would not get back to you. For myself I know that I sometimes disappear for awhile and may not get back to somebody; but I try if I notice. There is only one person who I would not respond to and that is because my ignore list will not let me view the post to know that there was a question directed to me.

I am still a little unclear on the exact meaning of irony (and am too lazy to look it up at this time in the morning) but is it irony that your topic on a lack of responses has, in less than 24 hours, elicited three pages of responses? If it makes you fell better I opened this thread only because I noticed that it was you who posted it and I enjoy reading your posts.

Yes, that is a situational irony... and also a hyperbole. Perhaps more on that later. And thank you for having "author interest" in this thread.

The one person you have on ignore, though, is someone with whom you actually did interact at one time, right? Not just a random blacklist?

 

[HotBulge]

Perhaps you are on too many ignore lists.:biggrin1:

I am still a little unclear on the exact meaning of irony (and am too lazy to look it up at this time in the morning) but is it irony that your topic on a lack of responses has, in less than 24 hours, elicited three pages of responses? If it makes you fell better I opened this thread only because I noticed that it was you who posted it and I enjoy reading your posts.

Dolf, unlike Alanis Morisette's song from the '90s ("Isn't it ironic?"), your understanding of irony is correct here. It's situational irony :wink:.

 

[arliss]

5100 posts? wow

 

[DC_DEEP]

Dolf, unlike Alanis Morisette's song from the '90s ("Isn't it ironic?"), your understanding of irony is correct here. It's situational irony :wink:.

I beat you to it, by 2 minutes!:biggrin1: Great minds really do think alike, don't they?

5100 posts? wow

It's taken me a while to get there. I've been around here a few years. I'm not exactly a post-whore, like some who racked up 5000 or so posts in less than a year. Thanks, though.

 

[dolf250]

The one person you have on ignore, though, is someone with whom you actually did interact at one time, right? Not just a random blacklist?

It is not really a random blacklist; but I did not really have direct contact with the person. Just an attitude that I did not like and did not care to be subjected to.

 

[deepdick]

Hey, anwers - who'da thunk?

So, don't know if this is pertinent but "forum" manners bear to resemblence to real life. Sad. Though this place is much better than most, sometimes you just have to expect nothing and be pleased when something nice happens.

Too negative? Well, that's my experience.