Sheep Tag Community

doubleposting is generally assumed to be negative. mods delete/merge doubleposts. double-posting is discouraged. etc.

i'll argue that double-posting can be good, and i'll be referring to the "ask cele dota questions!" thread, where two of my posts got merged. disclaimer: this is by NO means a complaint thread about cele's decision, he's a good kid. im just here to question what everyone else assumes to be true, gonna be interesting to hear if anyone can tear my case down.




so why is double-posting generally bad? probably because it spreads the persons point/argument/story across several sections, and in turn; disorganizes the thread. people are used to a format where different posts constitute different content (argument followed by rebuttal, question followed by reply, joke followed by response, etc). a format where post 1 = X, post 2 = Y, post 3 = Z. it's confusing and abnormal when post 1 = X, post 2 = X, and post 3 = X.

if the above is true, it then follows the organizing the thread is good. my claim is that double-posting (in certain situations) helps organize the thread, and makes reading easier for everyone else. the dota thread is a good example:

my first post was answering 2 dota-questions posed by someone. my answers turned out to be massive essays. my following post was a short one, where i added 2 of my own questions, encouraging others to answer them. these two posts got merged into 1, based on a presumption that double-posting was negative.

here's why double-posting was positive: the "essense"/content of the two posts weren't related. double-posting helped organize the thread by separating my questions (which i assume everyone wants to read) apart from my own answers to ensteks questions (which i assume many posters don't wanna read, partly due to the excessive lenght). When the questions are merged into the bottom of my essay post that most people won't read -> most people won't notice the questions either.

in summary, the double-post followed a "post 1 = X, post 2 = Y" pattern, rather than a "post 1 = X, post 2 = X" pattern. it was therefor positive for the thread.


anyone think im wrong? have i misrepresented the reason double-posting is generally bad? was my logic flawed? im anxious for the replies! i love cele btw, he probably did the right thing.

What you could have done instead is put a horizontal break line like I have done below.

---

That is much cleaner than seeing two posts made by the same person after each other.
I am simply disagreeing with you when you're stating that it is making the thread cleaner, I looked at the fact that you double posted and was like hmm, I'll just read the shorter post(Very lazy of me), but I did. Otherwise I most likely would have read the whole thing that pertained to what I was interested in. Just my point of view.

Yee I like that mike, and I was thinking about how to do it yesterday. What's the code or w.e for it?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ or w0t

What you could have done instead is put a horizontal break line like I have done below.

ye i guess. seems like you agree with the argument tho? double-posting and manually splitting your post with lines are variants of the same reasoning -> making reading easier for everyone else.

the only way i see my argument being taken down is if you can demonstrate why it's inherently negative if the same username makes 2 posts after eachother. i don't think it is. as much as cele/you think its off-putting, i (and probably others) think it's more organized and makes reading easier.

That is much cleaner than seeing two posts made by the same person after each other.
I am simply disagreeing with you when you're stating that it is making the thread cleaner, I looked at the fact that you double posted and was like hmm, I'll just read the shorter post(Very lazy of me), but I did. Otherwise I most likely would have read the whole thing that pertained to what I was interested in. Just my point of view.

i think your story perfectly illustrates my point. most people don't wanna read the long answers (apart from the person asking, and perhaps a few others). merging 1 small good text into a big text that people won't read = just enhances the problem. it makes the post seem even longer at face value, and people assume the whole **** is an answer to ensteks question.

separating the text everyone wants to read from the text specifically targeted at enstek = yEeEeEe!!! 3+3=6