.....
What about deletions in quotes? I would think a post that directly answers a previous post would receive greater weight if all the non-pertinent content of the quoted post is removed so that the connection between the earlier post and the response to it are more clear. Do I think right or wrong?
Thanks.
Anthony's covered the rest of the 'deletion/gutting' thing pretty well, so I won't harp on that too much
but you
are right about the quoting bit you mentioned & I quoted above.
As you can see above, I've deleted the 'non-applicable' part of your post, and that won't hurt the Forum's standing/rankings at all, because
THIS post; ie, my post with its 'short version quote' of your earlier post, is what will be referenced by the Search Engines... your earlier post now has its own search engine references, and those SE references won't have been broken or affected in any way by me quoting
just a part of your post here - but as soon as I've submitted
this post & the SE 'crawlers' come along & do their thing,
THEN it will break the new references for
THIS post (with its short version quote) if I gut it or delete it!! :shocked:
So each individual post gets it's own reference from each SE, with whatever quotes or parts of quotes are in it incuded in that reference; and it hurts if you delete the post itself entirely, or if you gut the post or substantially change it!! If there have been other posts/answers after your post, it hurts the whole thread if anything earlier gets deleted/gutted, cos the sequencing of all those references gets thrown out; and that hurts the Forum's standing in those all important site rankings. So the 'Delete Thread' facility has gone because it was costing us; more recently the open window for using the 'Edit Post' facility was restricted because it was costing us; and we've been asking for some time that people don't gut their posts or make substantial changes after submitting the post for the same reason.... But 'part quoting' is fine & even encouraged, because it helps the 'flow' of the conversation & allows anyone replying to address a specific point or portion of a previous post. :clap: All that make sense??
And while we're here, just a bit of an aside on quoting.... As you noted IMS & I've done above, Yes, you can certainly 'better direct' your reply by deleting the 'non-pertinent content' when you quote someone's earlier post, and that 'part quoting' or 'short version quoting' doesn't hurt anything for the reasons mentioned above - so yes, it's a good move!
BUT, & this is the critical point here, there's no real need to
ALWAYS quote the entire post you are replying to or even necessarily quoting
any of it, especially if it's the last post in the thread &/or is the post that's going to end up immediately above your reply once you submit said reply; it's just up there a bit, we all just read it, do we need to read it all over again?!?
NO! :gaah:
Sure, sometimes you want to address a specific point that's been raised, but then you can do what I've done above & use a 'short version quote'; and if you need/want to be absolutely specific about
WHO you are replying to rather than something specific they've just posted, then you can simply use their username in your reply; but generally, conversations don't involve every person parroting back everything that was just said before starting on their reply, so neither should our posts!
Most of the time, it's not necessary to quote at all; and even when it
is necessary or desirable to identify exactly who you are responding to, unless quoting their prior post is essential for your reply to make sense, then surely just using their name/username in your reply, just as you would in a face-to-face or around-the-table discussion, would suffice?! Of course it would!! :thumbup: If we all did this, it'd significantly reduce the vast swathes of duplicated &/or triplicated text that we hafta wade thru to get to follow the discussion, and it'd make the 'thread' of the conversation a whole lot easier to follow.....
hyea:
:cheers:
opcorn:
