Online Forums

[viscousmemories]

Ironically, I had a really hard time deciding which forum to put this thread in. I chose The Sciences because it's pretty much a social science type question.

On boards with a heavier philosophical focus like IIDB, why do so many people post responses to the Title or OP of a thread with no apparent consideration of the posts that preceded theirs?

A couple days ago I was reading a thread about falsification in the Science forum over there, and almost every response on the front page was a direct response to the OP, with no acknowledgement of the previous responses.

The thing is, I read the OP and the first response and thought "Well that's an interesting angle, let's see how this develops from there..." but it didn't develop from there, because the next person gave his answer to the OP, and so on, and so on, and so on...

In the end I got almost nothing but a random assortment of opinions, and I really didn't learn anything from it. What's the point of that?

[BracesForImpact]

I dunno, I reply to either/or, depending on which I feel will contribute more to the discussion.

[viscousmemories]

I dunno, I reply to either/or, depending on which I feel will contribute more to the discussion.
At least you consider what will contribute more to the discussion. It seems like some people don't consider that at all. Of course having said that, I guess my OP kind of begs the question "Why do you post on online forums with a philosophical bent?" and assumes that everyone reads and posts in the interest of learning. I suppose if someone posts more for entertainment value, to kill time, or for some other non-educational purpose then it isn't really relevant what other people post.

[livius drusus]

Well, at least part of it is a vague sense of obligation. Posting on a thread without addressing the OP might feel like diving into dinner without greeting the host, depending on how long the thread and the nature of the OP. If the OP asks any questions, for example, I'd want to at least make an effort to respond to them before turning my attentions elsewhere.

Then there's the whole issue of derailment and the "stick to the OP" principle, something treated very seriously on IIDB and other philosophically inclined forums I've encountered.

Finally, declamation is a lot easier than interaction.

[Crumb]

What's the point of that?

If threads are too long, I understand completely. I read the OP, I have my own brilliant perspective to dispense. I don't have time to read your twaddle. But if the thread is just a few posts, there is really no excuse. :wink:

[Dingfod]

I try to read an entire thread before responding (I said TRY). But, if all the other responses are just answering a question posed by the OP with their own opinion, why not respond in like kind? What if I don't see any posts after the OP to which I feel compelled to respond? I really don't see the problem.

[Gurdur]

I was just thinking the other day, how the hell did we survive before tomato sauce was invented ? Let alone Worcestorshire.

[Dingfod]

:qlol:

[viscousmemories]

I try to read an entire thread before responding (I said TRY). But, if all the other responses are just answering a question posed by the OP with their own opinion, why not respond in like kind? What if I don't see any posts after the OP to which I feel compelled to respond? I really don't see the problem.
Well I probably didn't explain it clearly enough in the OP (surprise, surprise) but in the example of the falsification thread at IIDB the OP was essentially "What is falsification and why is it important?" Now if everyone responds to that with their own definition of falsification (which is essentially what happened), there's no way the thread participants are going to reach any kind of consensus about what it even means, much less why it's important. That's an oversimplification of that particular thread, but that's the gist of what I meant.

[viscousmemories]

I was just thinking the other day, how the hell did we survive before tomato sauce was invented ? Let alone Worcestorshire.
:chuckle:

[Dingfod]

I try to read an entire thread before responding (I said TRY). But, if all the other responses are just answering a question posed by the OP with their own opinion, why not respond in like kind? What if I don't see any posts after the OP to which I feel compelled to respond? I really don't see the problem.
Well I probably didn't explain it clearly enough in the OP (surprise, surprise) but in the example of the falsification thread at IIDB the OP was essentially "What is falsification and why is it important?" Now if everyone responds to that with their own definition of falsification (which is essentially what happened), there's no way the thread participants are going to reach any kind of consensus about what it even means, much less why it's important. That's an oversimplification of that particular thread, but that's the gist of what I meant.Now, that's a horse of a different color. Asking thread respondents to come up with a definition for something is most definitely different than asking what their definition is. You do have to be pretty specific when you pose a question.

[pescifish]

I think sometimes all I want from an online forum is everyone's opinion. I don't usually see discussions come to any real conclusion or consensus online, IMO. I'd prefer to set a wide net and catch all comments than get into the usual debate pissing matches. I know that's not the right way to approach "philosophy" but it is for many other topics that show up on an online forum.

That said, I usually read a whole thread first then respond, if possible, to both OP and the current direction of the discussion (if, in fact, there is any current direction). But then again, I tend to stay away from philosophical discussions in the first place.

[Shake]

Well, you see it all depends.

I like liv's answer. Especially when the o.p. has a definite "I want to know what all think about <insert issue or topic here>" type of question. One feels obligated to respond to that even if there is further discussion from there.

That said, I might read through a whole thread, noting other areas to reply to, and start out by saying, "In reference to the o.p., I think that ..." and then continuing on with comments more relevant to subsequent posts. Very often, most POVs are covered within the first few posts, or at least the first page. What happens after that is fleshing out reasons, perhaps new questions, etc. It doesn't happen often, but I have come into a 3-4 page thread and thinking, "Gee, I can't believe no one's mentioned THIS <insert new idea here> yet!" At which point, I'll start by answering the o.p. then. Although, I'd make a point of saying something, "Back to the o.p. for a second ...," and then inserting my comments. I'd then get back to any comments I might have on subsequent posts or new directions the thread has taken.

I wouldn't mind someone -- perhaps a new member of the forum -- coming to the discussion late and wanting to add their two cents to the o.p. topic, provided they either show or mention that they've read the whole thing. Sometimes, I find I wish that the direction of the thread was different and while the o.p. interested me, I have no interest in the new direction its gone, so I don't even bother to comment at all.

It all depends on the topic and where it goes.

[Ensign Steve]

If threads are too long, I understand completely. I read the OP, I have my own brilliant perspective to dispense. I don't have time to read your twaddle.

:yup:

Yah, what Crumb said. Especially on II where 90% of the content really is twaddle (though possibly less on the upper fora).

[justaman]

I'm doing it right now :) The OP was asking for the opinion of the forum members, and members may prefer to answer that question directly, rather than wading through however much tangential discourse has followed.

The only time I think this isn't appropriate is when the OP has left the thread and you have two people arguing about something quite different. It very occasionally has happened throughout my nihilism threads (including those which I've hijacked :muahaha: ) but it's no biggee.

[Godless Dave]

I think what happens is someone reads the OP and has an immediate reaction to it, so they post while it's still fresh in their minds without reading any subsequent posts.

Or did somebody already say that?

[JoeP]

I was just thinking the other day, how the hell did we survive before tomato sauce was invented ? Let alone Worcestorshire.
Because we react to things and want to speak up instantly. Like the blatant, gregarious misspelling of Worcestershire.

(Did somebody already say that?)

[viscousmemories]

Thanks for all the random opinions, folks. I have learned nothing here.



j/k :D

[koan]

I haven't noticed many threads where no one responds to subsequent comments...I can see how that would be annoying. I have noticed some posters (mostly on another forum) that are trying to up their post count by only reading the OP and responding with quick one liners or brief comments. I usually only quote the OP if I have a thought I don't want to lose while reading the rest but then go through the replies and comment again at the end. I try not to do that too much because someone else might have already said what I was thinking and I hate to be redundant.

In the case of the thread mentioned, it seems a good idea to call everyone's attention to reaching a consensus. It would be interesting to go back and find favour or fault with the various definitions. In the same way it sometimes requires redirection back to the original topic I guess sometimes it is required to direct it away.