Multi-quote rule

Nicholas Myers said:On the US forums I moderate (Health and its related sub-forums), I frequently merge consecutive posts from the same user.

My criteria for merging posts depend on two things: the length of the content and the timeframe between them. If combining two or more posts results in a single manageable entry and they were posted close together, I merge them regularly. I don't issue warnings or bans just for posting sequentially; however, if I notice someone is constantly flooding the board with one-sentence posts, I’ll send a private message asking them to consolidate.

Beyond simple spamming, what bothers me more—and I see this quite often on the Health boards, especially from newer users with low post counts—is when people blast identical messages across multiple different threads. In those instances, I delete the duplicates and leave only one original post. If the behavior persists, I follow up with a warning via PM.

It’s a simple question, really: why exactly? 😕You’re putting in all this effort and wasting your own time—for what purpose? What is the actual benefit to the forum, the PDF, or the specific topic when you merge those kinds of posts?

Then again, if we are talking about substantive, meaningful posts, perhaps the author had a legitimate reason to keep them separate. But if the posts are just nonsense, then merging them isn't going to suddenly create some sort of critical mass of meaningful content.

So, I guess the real question remains: what is the point of doing that?

I'll jump in if the author starts dropping a bunch of short posts in a row. I didn't go ahead and ban anyone just yet. ☕

Sophia Thomas7 said:I'll jump in if the author starts dropping a bunch of short posts in a row. I didn't go ahead and ban anyone just yet. ☕

And what’s the point of merging? Please explain—because I genuinely don't see any purpose in doing that.

Objectively speaking, posting three one-liners in three consecutive posts is eyesore. Whether a moderator chooses to merge them depends on their sense of aesthetics or how much free time they have, but it isn't necessary. The forum won't collapse if they aren't combined.

shadowpilot8 said:I won't penalize anyone for failing to use Multi-quote or for combining posts. This forum has far too many rules 😁

This.

Man, it’s wild that we’ve actually reached the point where people are getting flagged just because they dropped three posts in a row 😕 I honestly can't believe there are mods out there actually doing this.

And merging them? Seriously... I think I’ve merged someone’s posts maybe three times total in my entire life. Most people just post things back-to-back when they're separate thoughts. Why would anyone even bother merging two consecutive posts when one is answering one thing and the other is responding to something else entirely? 🤷 Did the moderators start paying a tax per post on this sub, or something? Like, is it suddenly their job to drive down the total post count? 🤷

@Jose Miller3, someone needs to sit down and seriously overhaul these rules. Believe me or not, this is what’s currently listed in the official guidelines, and you can't blame people for following them. 😉

Where does it say that?

btw, saying "people aren't to blame" isn't really true—everyone chooses their own level of how much they actually follow the rules, and honestly, every moderator has that discretion to just look the other way sometimes...🤷

shadowpilot8 said:Objectively speaking, posting three one-liners in three consecutive posts is eyesore. Whether a moderator chooses to merge them depends on their sense of aesthetics or how much free time they have, but it isn't necessary. The forum won't collapse if they aren't combined.

I see it as having only two possible outcomes here: either those three one-liners are incredibly brilliant, witty, or actually provide some substance to three different authors—in which case, merging them would just dilute the impact—or they are just three mindless "I agree," "signed," or "LOL" comments that really ought to be deleted altogether.

Merging them doesn't make anything look better.

Under the rules of certain subforums, take the US Legal System for example.

Someone introduced them, and everyone else just follows suit. 🤷

It seems foolish to insist on such rigid regulations. I’m exercising my discretion to ignore what strikes me as trivial nonsense. Ideally, this could be organized into a formal set of rules paired with a list of recommendations—guidelines that shouldn't carry penalties except in extreme cases.

shadowpilot8 said:Under the rules of certain subforums, take the US Legal System for example.

Someone introduced them, and everyone else just follows suit. 🤷

It seems foolish to insist on such rigid regulations. I’m exercising my discretion to ignore what strikes me as trivial nonsense. Ideally, this could be organized into a formal set of rules paired with a list of recommendations—guidelines that shouldn't carry penalties except in extreme cases.

Using Multi-quote as a recommendation seems like a brilliant idea—if you're into that sort of thing. 😍

Maria Reyes4 said:And what’s the point of merging? Please explain—because I genuinely don't see any purpose in doing that.

I already gave you my answer.

Sophia Thomas7 said:I already gave you my answer.

Not really. You explained *how* when you do it—not why.

What I actually care about is the motivation behind it. Is it just because you think it looks better that way?

Sophia Thomas7 said:I already gave you my answer.

Actually, you haven't 🙂.

You provided an answer describing the specific situation where you do this—but, you didn't really clarify (my apologies if I somehow missed it) the reasoning behind it. So, what is the actual purpose of joining them? What exactly is the benefit being achieved here?

Maria Reyes4 said:Using Multi-quote as a recommendation seems like a brilliant idea—if you're into that sort of thing. 😍

Beyond that, I'd suggest adding rules against replying with nothing but an emoji—sometimes a single icon says enough. We also need to stop people from starting new threads when similar ones already exist; newcomers often don't grasp how a forum functions. There's probably more, but I can't think of anything else right now. Micromanaging isn't necessary; it doesn't improve the community.

Actually, I would just take what Desiree wrote and establish those as the core rules. They are sufficient. Everything else is optional.

shadowpilot8 said:Under the rules of certain subforums, take the US Legal System for example.

Someone introduced them, and everyone else just follows suit. 🤷

It seems foolish to insist on such rigid regulations. I’m exercising my discretion to ignore what strikes me as trivial nonsense. Ideally, this could be organized into a formal set of rules paired with a list of recommendations—guidelines that shouldn't carry penalties except in extreme cases.

I guess I agree. It feels pretty stupid to be so obsessed with MQ. Even though I use it fairly often myself (and I think it looks better 😁), sometimes it just feels wrong, especially when an argument gets heated and you have to go back and edit a post just to reply to something new. It just thins out the conversation and kills the momentum. Plus, shoving a new response into an old post when the topic has moved on seems pretty dumb.

The idea of using recommendations instead of hard rules sounds okay to me. As for the people just spamming posts, those usually don't add anything to the thread anyway, so they can just be deleted or maybe penalized if needed.

Look, if someone drops two posts in a row and it’s not total garbage, who cares? But if you’ve got ten posts from the same person back-to-back, it actually looks a lot cleaner to merge them rather than having an entire page of a thread dominated by just one guy.

I don't usually go around handing out bans for stuff like that, and honestly, I rarely bother merging unless I'm bored scrolling through the PDF forum Help and decide to clean up a few posts that were sent within minutes of each other.
It doesn't occur to me to delete someone's posts just because they realized they forgot to add something to their previous thought.

That rule was created back when everyone was just spamming posts one after another to farm post counts. At first, they just told people not to do it, but no matter how many warnings they issued about merging posts or repetitive replies, people kept doing it. So, they changed it to—you can actually get a penalty card.
Looking at things today, honestly, that part should be scrapped and just turned into a suggestion to use Multi-quote instead.
But, this happens quite often...

melloworca6 said:Look, if someone drops two posts in a row and it’s not total garbage, who cares? But if you’ve got ten posts from the same person back-to-back, it actually looks a lot cleaner to merge them rather than having an entire page of a thread dominated by just one guy.

I don't usually go around handing out bans for stuff like that, and honestly, I rarely bother merging unless I'm bored scrolling through the PDF forum Help and decide to clean up a few posts that were sent within minutes of each other.
It doesn't occur to me to delete someone's posts just because they realized they forgot to add something to their previous thought.

It’s much cleaner to merge them all into one, rather than leaving it looking like what's described here. Makes the thread easier to read...

As far as I know, this isn't some universal forum rule, just stuff specific to certain subforums. Not that I don't occasionally mash 4 or 5 tiny posts together just to keep things readable... I don't recall ever handing out a warning for that.

Jack Bishop94 said:That rule was created back when everyone was just spamming posts one after another to farm post counts. At first, they just told people not to do it, but no matter how many warnings they issued about merging posts or repetitive replies, people kept doing it. So, they changed it to—you can actually get a penalty card.
Looking at things today, honestly, that part should be scrapped and just turned into a suggestion to use Multi-quote instead.
But, this happens quite often...

It’s much cleaner to merge them all into one, rather than leaving it looking like what's described here. Makes the thread easier to read...

Thanks for the response. What you're saying makes perfect sense.

It’s actually refreshing to see more people showing up here to have a decent conversation about the rules.

So, can we at least agree regarding the main board that the rule is changing—that merging posts and issuing warnings won't be necessary anymore, while keeping multi-quote as a recommendation rather than a strict requirement? 🙂

Nicholas King said:It’s a simple question, really: why exactly? 😕You’re putting in all this effort and wasting your own time—for what purpose? What is the actual benefit to the forum, the PDF, or the specific topic when you merge those kinds of posts?

Then again, if we are talking about substantive, meaningful posts, perhaps the author had a legitimate reason to keep them separate. But if the posts are just nonsense, then merging them isn't going to suddenly create some sort of critical mass of meaningful content.

So, I guess the real question remains: what is the point of doing that?

I have several reasons for doing this. First, when merging multiple threads, you run the risk of posts from other topics getting sandwiched between related ones, which breaks the continuity. It’s also much easier to manage merged posts if we ever need to split them back up later. On the Health forum, we frequently merge threads for various reasons I won't get into right now.

Furthermore, it's simply more efficient for me to work with consolidated posts. Having symptoms, complaints, and signs all contained in one single entry is far better than chasing them through several consecutive posts. It's partly a professional habit; in my day job, I prefer patient records to be centralized in one place whenever possible—it makes the workflow significantly faster and smoother.

It happens sometimes where a user describes a medical issue across several posts, and by the time they're done, some of those posts have already pushed onto the next page. That creates an annoying hurdle when you go to reply; you have to stop, scroll back to the previous page, and jump back and forth unless you end up quoting every single one of those individual posts.

There are other reasons why I merge posts, but I'll leave those out here.

I don't issue warnings or "card" users just for posting consecutively. In fact, I think I've only sent one private message regarding this, and that was only because a user was spamming consecutive posts, demanding to know why nobody was answering them immediately.

So, I hope I'll be allowed to continue moderating this way and keep merging posts as described. However, if the administration or my fellow moderators decide this practice is actually counterproductive or useless, I'll stop merging consecutive posts from the same author within short timeframes.