I'd just like to report that I never open links to YouTube videos if the poster hasn't given a description of its content. Or ever bother reading more than the first line or two of posts with text that goes beyond the bottom of my PC screen.
Am I the only one?
Mike
In message <IOudnWGSSPdas5v snipped-for-privacy@brightview.co.uk>, Mike Rogers snipped-for-privacy@mattishall.org.uk> writes
Beyond making sure there is no one else in the room if it has come from ARW? I'll take a risk if I recognise the poster.
Speaking of which, we seem to have gathered a few fresh faces.
No.
No - since there is no context in Youtube links, the likelihood of the presenter taking ages to get to the point, and the tendency of certain posters to use this group like their personal blog of rants parroting what random people have said on YT, I won't view them unless the text is enough to indicate that it's worth my while.
I don't have a problem with long posts (this is not Twitter), but those incapable of snipping pages of quoting on the other hand...
Theo
No.
I avoid clicking on right/left wing political vids uploaded by idiots.
Once google records that interest they suggest similar videos and advertising that is hard to remove from the suggested feed.
The only way around that is to subscribe a lot to positive interests.
Which leaves me very little time to watch traditional TV.
Which is great :)
Generally the same here...
Seems like a daft rule to me.
Better to judge each on its merits IMHO.
Personally I find posts that ask questions without providing adequate background information are more irritating than ones that furnish more than you might need.
If the post is a response to a question, then there are times it will need to be long to adequately answer it.
Indeed. Or even with descriptions, if the poster hasn't indicated the times of any relevant bits, but expects you to sit through the whole thing.
Same with blind URL links more or less. Where the poster can't be bothered to provide a two sentence summary of the contents.
But why would you even bother reading the first line or two ?
Unless to decide they were actually worth reading in their entirety?
bb
Exactly for that reason. If the first sentence or so contains an interesting DIY question I read on.
Mike
That's why I read the first sentence or so.
Mike
Having been following this newsgroup for more years than I care to remember, its answers like this that make me appreciate a well moderated Facebook group all the more.
Mike
No, me too. Except for a very select few posters (but they normally include a description).
I understand your point, but the ease of management, thread following/ ignoring, finding new posts & comments is far greater on usenet.
Chris
For me it depends on the poster, or the subject (cat and other animals are always worth a quick look vids ;-)) and/or how much time I have spare. I rarely bookmark one or save for later, except the NASA james webb telescope which is 4 hours ! long. So far I've skipped through bits, not sure I can watch the whole thing, it's even longer than Lord of the rings !
Is that so?
What is the purpose of your post? I am afraid I stopped reading it at this point...
The great think about Usenet, is that you do your own moderation. I had no idea that Rod Speed was still even using that nym, as I plonked it about 5 years ago.
Facebook 'moderation' is all about who pays the most and shouts the loudest. I.e. it is politically and commercially as even handed as a one armed bandit.
Ditto.
Depends if the subject line piques my interest.
BTW, your subject line is incorrectly formatted. It should say ?Jim is a dick?. ;-)
Tim
One filter and Mr speed and all his pals vanish in a puff of electrons:
Mr Speed tends to use lots of socks which makes it all a bit tricky.
But he's soon identifiable by his use of the same phrasing. His is the only filter with so many identities in it.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required