Support NeoGAF

[temp]

It seriously ruins the flow of a thread. You're reading along and then you get to a post with a quote it in, and it's like, Wait a minute, when the hell did this happen? Everything's out of context.

Then you scroll down and the guy quoted a post that came like five posts later.

Just make a new post!

 

[SwiftDeath]

It can seem awkward if you already have a lot of posts on that page

Like I post, someone else posts, I post again then want to respond to the post right after that etc.

Maybe to not spam the thread

Yeah pretty much this

 

[Gintoki]

Maybe to not spam the thread

 

[Poltergust]

Even though you're not double-posting, if you respond to a post so soon after you already put up a post, it makes you feel like you're spamming.

It's mostly a psychological thing. There actually isn't any legitimate reason to do it, it just makes you feel better even if it actually makes things more confusing.

 

[Chichikov]

I guess people can't wait for the post cooldown.
Fucking ADD kids, I blame MTV.

Well fuck you temp, you're not the boss of me.

Hey man, that was uncalled for.

 

[vicissitudes]

It helps limit the number of total posts I have which affects my GAF image. Everyone knows if you have 10000+ posts it means you have no life.

To save paper.

Also this.

 

[temp]

It can seem awkward if you already have a lot of posts on that page

Like I post, someone else posts, I post again then want to respond to the post right after that etc.

But the guy might not even see your response. I don't usually scroll up to see if people have responded to me in the past.

I refuse to acknowledge the rest of your post.

 

[Dougald]

I'd rather feel like I was spamming than ruin the flow of the thread, when people do this with anything other than the post directly below theirs, it really makes things hard to read

 

[SwiftDeath]

But the guy might not even see your response. I don't usually scroll up to see if people have responded to me in the past.

I suppose that's me assuming everyone uses gaf like I do. By that I mean everyone searches for when they were quoted via the search function. That way I can see if anyone was interested in having a discussion with me and so on

I refuse to acknowledge the rest of your post.

Ha

 

[Acorn]

I'd rather feel like I was spamming than ruin the flow of the thread, when people do this with anything other than the post directly below theirs, it really makes things hard to read

Plus if it's an edited quote it frames something the way the respondent wishes before you actually see the full post.

 

[Trey]

The same reason people will purposely do the thing that annoys you just because you pointed it out.

Because there is no justice in the world.

 

[Finaika]

To save paper.

 

[marvelharvey]

But the guy might not even see your response. I don't usually scroll up to see if people have responded to me in the past.

Pretty much this. I've never scrolled up to see if someone has added a quote from me.

I have however wasted countless minutes/hours scrolling up and up and up, trying to find a quote that was in fact below.

 

[Acorn]

To save paper.

I have my butler print off threads for reading before I make my reply with a quill written perfumed paper letter. Which he dutifully types for me.

 

[Skeyser]

It's really annoying, if it's to quote the post right under yours I could see it, but doing it for posts several posts under yours is stupid.

 

[Soodanim]

It's something I've only ever seen on GAF. I assumed it was the done thing in line with GAF's other strict(ish) rules and I sometimes do it, but only if it's the very next post.

What happens if you have a back a forth post conversation with someone and you decide to edit your post instead of replying? Then when they reply they either double post or edit. If they edit, you could end up with each post having one half of a conversation, which is nonsense.

 

[FantasticMrFoxdie]

To save paper.

Yup. Feels like its proper posting etiquette

That shit is annoying as fuck.

People who do this need to be shot.

I legit hate it when people do that.

I know. Its weird.
Didn't realize how bad some people hate it. I'm guilty for sometimes doing this with people a few posts below. Will try to hold back from now on.

 

[kurahador]

We aren't in a typewriter age old man.
We can edit all we want!!

Some forums has this feature where if your post comes after your previous posts in the same day, it'll automatically merge it.

 

[HGStormy]

Less spammy, especially if you've already posted multiple replies.

 

[FinalStageBoss]

That shit is annoying as fuck.

 

[davepoobond]

To not spam a thread. People view double posting or triple posting as insanity.

I do both

I will only edit if its the post directly below me, if not, I will make a new post.

 

[Mik2121]

Not as bad as people replying to a quote before the actual quote. It's not so bad if there's only one quote, bur when there are two or more quotes it can get confusing.

It seriously ruins the flow of a thread. You're reading along and then you get to a post with a quote it in, and it's like, Wait a minute, when the hell did this happen? Everything's out of context.

Then you scroll down and the guy quoted a post that came like five posts later.

Just make a new post!

 

[Slavik81]

"Not as bad as people replying to a quote before the actual quote. It's not so bad if there's only one quote, bur when there are two or more quotes it can get confusing."

There are worse things.

 

[MIMIC]

It can seem awkward if you already have a lot of posts on that page

Like I post, someone else posts, I post again then want to respond to the post right after that etc.



Yeah pretty much this

LOL @ this post.

But yeah...if I've already posted a lot, posing again soon after feels....weird for some reason.

 

[figadapaura]

"Not as bad as people replying to a quote before the actual quote. It's not so bad if there's only one quote, bur when there are two or more quotes it can get confusing."

There are worse things.

Ugh.

 

[Nozem]

People who do this need to be shot.

 

[Mike Works]

I legit hate it when people do that. Completely with the OP on this one.

For those worrying that it may spam up the thread, if that's a real threat, then maybe you should just hold off on posting every single minute. Take a breath. Wait five minutes. Then multi-quote.

It's easy.

The worst is when someone posts something really funny/unique (like say a Sunhi GIF), and then an asshole above them edits that into their post, commenting on it, almost making it seem like they were the first to post it.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I used to do this, but now I just posting in a row.

Again, this has nothing to do with double or triple posting.

Yep.

ITT: Everyone doing what drives OP crazy.

Double Yep.

 

[FreeMufasa]

Gotta maintain a 4 post a day average.

I'd ur over 5 ur embarrassing.

EDIT: anyone remember that kid who had a 75 post a day average? Turkishwarrior or something

 

[SliceSabre]

So it doesn't feel like I'm posting a lot in a thread.

 

[Five]

I try to abstain from this. There's usually not any need to. If I'm feeling spammy, then that's either because I am spamming or there are a lot of people responding to me. If a lot of people are responding to me, I don't mind cluttering the thread with my earned rebuttals. I'll try to consolidate the responses to one post when appropriate, but it isn't always so.

The only time I can think of it being appropriate is if something new has come to light that needs to be highlighted in the OP, or if you say something stupid and want to acknowledge it so that people stop quoting you further.

 

[n64coder]

EDIT: anyone remember that kid who had a 75 post a day average? Turkishwarrior or something

Cuphead has to be over 100. I don't mind because I look to see if he has changed his avatar.

I agree that editing your post to respond to a later post is annoying.

 

[jts]

One word: throw the feds off.

But I could care less.

 

[fertygo]

To avoid double post. Of course people would just made new post if there is already new post made by other poster, if not this is an option to avoid your own post stacking.

 

[nasax]

That shit used to confuse me the first time I read this forum. I thought I was reading quotes of missing posts or something until I read further in the thread.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I find it annoying. You're setting the tone of someone else's post before the other readers have already seen it - if you respond negatively then people start reading that post with a negative outlook on its legitimacy rather than reading it in its own merits.

Also, THERE'S NO POINT. Whether you post is "spam" is based on how useful or interesting it is, not in how many posts it sits. It's not like there's a limit to posts or anything, and any perception of spamminess is vastly outweighed by the weird out-of-order flow of the conversation in terms of being annoying.

 

[Persona7]

I pretty much never return to a previous page and half the time I reply to a thread and forget to ever check it again.

 

[fertygo]

In many forum mod would merge your double/triple post and sometime even give you infraction for it, its kinda became known ethiquete in fotum browsing.. so I'm surprised there is people that saying "just do double post!" Because such a thing is something that could be punished in forum browsing, some of you only had GAF as forum or something?

 

[Acorn]

I find it annoying. You're setting the tone of someone else's post before the other readers have already seen it - if you respond negatively then people start reading that post with a negative outlook on its legitimacy rather than reading it in its own merits.

Also, THERE'S NO POINT. Whether you post is "spam" is based on how useful or interesting it is, not in how many posts it sits. It's not like there's a limit to posts or anything, and any perception of spamminess is vastly outweighed by the weird out-of-order flow of the conversation in terms of being annoying.

Agree with this

 

[Surface of Me]

I made a thread similar to this and the mods laughed a mad man's laugh. God speed OP.

 

[Ty4on]

I'm really annoyed when people do this because I mostly read threads chronologically so when a quoted post I'm unaware off pops up I start scrolling up to find what I missed.

I'm so afraid of people not seeing my posts that in fast moving threads I'll usually reply to a post above mine in a new post

 

[CyclopsRock]

In many forum mod would merge your double/triple post and sometime eveb give you infraction for it, its kinda became known ethiquete in fotum browding.. so I'm surprised there is people that saying "just do double post!" Because such a thing is something that could be punished in forum browsing, some of you only had GAF as forum or something?

This doesn't make sense - how can you double post by quoting a post that comes AFTER your post? There must be at least one post after yours - the one you're quoting.

 

[robotrock]

Gotta maintain a 4 post a day average.

I'd ur over 5 ur embarrassing.

EDIT: anyone remember that kid who had a 75 post a day average? Turkishwarrior or something

Halo 2 was recently crazy but not as crazy as that guy I guess

 

[fertygo]

This doesn't make sense - how can you double post by quoting a post that comes AFTER your post? There must be at least one post after yours - the one you're quoting.

Double post isn't determined by the content is exacly same or not in most case, if few post by same account stacking together its usually called as multiple post.. if you think thats not common why you think forun board usually not shaped like glorified chatroom and prople not just stacking their own post?

 

[onken]

Yeah agree it's dumb.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Double post isn't determined by the content is exacly same or not in most case, if few post by same account stacking together its usually called as multiple post.. if you think thats not common why you think forun board usually not shaped like glorified chatroom and prople not just stacking their own post?

I don't think I'm being clear. The problem discussed in this thread is going back to edit your post to respond to a post after this post. So you have your original post, Post A, then a subsequent post, Post B. You edit Post A to quote and respond to Post B. This is the scenario to which the thread refers. In this situation, there's no way in which making a new post - Post C - could result in a double or multipost, because the whole point is that Post B has been made. Quoting one post, repling, quoting another post and replying separately etc - THAT can lead to multiple posting. But that's not what we're talking about here.

 

[Platy]

This thread is worst than a Tarantino movie =P

 

[Unai]

I really hate when people do that.

 

[Basileus777]

Because they are fools that don't understand how message boards work. Anyone quoting a post made after them should be banned.

 

[Kopite]

I've always been slightly annoyed by this.