Why I dislike long posts

[WildFire]

Long posts = A lot of thought, your awesome but no one reads it.

Short posts = considered spam and frowned upon.

Lose-lose situation.

 

[Knowze Gungk]

No read long ones. Short's best.

 

[Xen]

when ever I post in bold, I'm considered a mean jackass, when ever I post along essay no one reads it, so then I have to be a mean jackass

 

[Syterion]

I figured your topic starter would go like this:

Why I dislike long posts

They suck.

 

[china444]

I wish I would have had this reason to tell TF when I got banned twice for one line posts....

(yeah TF, I was making sure that people "remembered" my posts)

 

[JollyRoger]

A good post should be like a miniskirt: Long enough to cover the essentials, but short enough to be interesting.

Unfortunately, most of my posts are either obscenely short or ankle-covering long.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by onejayhawk
Anyone that dislikes long posts have never read Vrylakas or RIII when they are being emphatic. Genius may lie in simplicity, but that means it can be, and must be, unpacked as needed.

On the orther hand, I never have enough to say that a long post is required.

J

or yourself or gothmog or carlosMM or any number of good posters

i really struggle to read the long posts. short attention span or whatever.

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
If I know the poster, I'll read long pieces. Otherwise I'll just skim it.

I rarely finish reading long posts I agree with

same.

any long posts that i do are just a bunch of quotes with a short argument against each bit.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Well, I suppose my recent post in the Better Economy thread is an offender against the short-post feeling:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1418822#post1418822

But on the upside, it's well worth reading!

 

[Zwelgje]

I love short posts.

 

[Mescalhead]

The only long posts that I skip over is when someone will give an exerpt of a bible passage and then relate it to the discussion. No thanks.
Otherwise, long posts are fine as long as they are not ridiculous. I believe the problem is simply that long posts take more thinking. The usual short post is either a snide remark or echoing what some other poster has said. That's fine, but the long posts are where you truly get a critical thought communicated.

P.S. Smilies suck.

 

[WildFire]

Originally posted by Mescalhead

P.S. Smilies suck.

Now why would you say that?

Smilies rock

 

[Maj]

I don't give a hoot about volume. If there is little or no repetition, good prose and an even better point I'd rather spend the time reading over one well written essay than a hundred short skirmishes (I go to friends for those).

 

[WillJ]

It's funny that some people (sometimes including me, actually) have, for example, a problem with reading an eight-paragraph post but absolutely no problem with reading eight one-paragraph posts.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by h4ppy
I prefere posts of the 5 line variety. They are small enough to get the pount across easily but large enough to cover multiple topics.

Same here. Of course, I seem to rarely get that far

 

[Vrylakas]

 

[The Yankee]

What the...? I see Vrylakas's name...but I don't see 5 pages of good information. What gives? I feel robbed....

 

[Archer 007]

Now that I think about it, Kafka (sp?) makes some nice long posts that I could sit and read all day.

 

[newfangle]

I agree. In fact, many of the intelligent posters on these boards, such as Gothmog and FredLC have INSANELY long posts.

Sorry guys, sometimes mine eyes are to tired to read.

 

[Archer 007]

Gothmog only seems to show up in C vs. E threads. I wish we'd get more content out of him

FredLC is also always good at making it simple for us common folks.

 

[covok48]

Matrix is right. Long posts get repetative.

However, Kaufka2 writes the best damned long posts I've ever read. No matter what thetopic, he makes it interesting.