Multi-quote rule

Nicholas Myers said: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.

Thanks for the thorough breakdown 🙂. If I’ve managed to grasp your point correctly—and I assume I have—your reasoning (which, in turn, seems perfectly logical to me) stems from the specific nature of your PDF file.

I suppose I should mention that when I find myself Multiquoting, it's usually just a mechanical way of grouping adjacent posts together—it isn't driven by any deep motivations like the ones you've laid out here.

Nicholas Myers said: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.

Nobody is complaining. If anything, everyone likes how meticulous you are. 😘

Look, I merge them when I see posts coming in close together that are clearly related. It happens all the time where someone remembers to add a symptom or a test result a few minutes later. It’s much cleaner and easier to manage when everything is consolidated in one spot.

Besides, some people are genuinely sick, and the last thing they need to worry about is some MQ. I don't mind merging a few posts a day for them.

Maria Reyes4 said: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? 🙂

The stuff about getting flagged is gone. They just left an explanation on where to find the multi-quote and how to use it. So the whole post basically reads like—here's a way to avoid spamming consecutive posts... I guess. 🤔
And posts will just merge without any warnings at the bottom.

Jack Bishop94 said:The stuff about getting flagged is gone. They just left an explanation on where to find the multi-quote and how to use it. So the whole post basically reads like—here's a way to avoid spamming consecutive posts... I guess. 🤔
And posts will just merge without any warnings at the bottom.

Tetaaa Hvaaal👋 Thanks for the good news! 👋

Multi-

And it’s going to merge without any warning down there.

Is there really no way to avoid that merging? 😍

Nicholas King said: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?

Every once in a while, someone pops up and leaves 3 or 4 posts in a row that are just a single sentence long. And I'm not talking about a witty comeback or a "mwahahaha" or an "I agree." In those cases, I don't necessarily want to delete them (honestly, I only delete things when there's a glaring issue or a rule violation)—I just merge them to keep the thread from looking messy. I mostly do this when the posts are somewhat related, which happens all the time in super active threads.

I've never actually banned anyone; I've just sent people a private message letting them know they should probably take a quick look at the rules regarding MQ.

Since Desiree asked us to weigh in on this thread, I figured I’d throw my two cents in too.
Look, I’m not going to ban someone just because they drop a few posts in a row.
I’ll merge them if it actually makes sense—like when it’s obvious someone just remembered something else they wanted to say but decided to start a new post instead of using the edit button.
Sometimes merging just feels wrong, so I won't do it—for instance, if one post is a direct reply to someone, and the next one is just a general comment on the whole discussion.

Basically, I prefer Multi-quote, but I’m not out here handing out penalties to anyone who doesn't use it. Half the time, the new guys don't even realize how to work the feature, so I’ll just shoot them a quick PM with instructions. 😁

Honestly, I’m pretty much the same way. I don't think I've ever actually handed out a ban for failing to use Multi-quote; I only jump in and connect posts if it actually makes sense to do so, otherwise, I just let it slide.
I was thinking specifically about the moderators—like, if someone were constantly abusing the system by just posting one-liners over and over, maybe then an official warning or a PM would be warranted. But hey, you know what? It doesn't even have to happen then. Who cares, really... :/

...regardless of what was said above, I’m going to keep chaining my posts together one after another,
which should help prevent any less-than-talented writers from flooding the zone if the clock is ticking...
...otherwise, we run the risk of someone dumping an absolutely ridiculous amount of content in a tiny window of time...
...and honestly, doing this just makes the whole thread much easier to navigate and read through,
so I’ll continue to delete any Quoting without any prior warning,
provided that the quote refers back to a post written earlier in the thread...
(the only exception here would be the very first posts on subsequent pages)

loneraven25 said:...regardless of what was said above, I’m going to keep chaining my posts together one after another,
which should help prevent any less-than-talented writers from flooding the zone if the clock is ticking...
...otherwise, we run the risk of someone dumping an absolutely ridiculous amount of content in a tiny window of time...
...and honestly, doing this just makes the whole thread much easier to navigate and read through,
so I’ll continue to delete any Quoting without any prior warning,
provided that the quote refers back to a post written earlier in the thread...
(the only exception here would be the very first posts on subsequent pages)

You’ve essentially ruined what was becoming a perfectly good discussion by being unnecessarily exclusionary—basically deciding that your own unbacked opinion carries more weight than all the actual examples and scenarios we've laid out here.

Fortunately, the mobile carrier industry isn't exactly my field of expertise, so I don't have to worry about falling victim to your constant 👎nonsense.

BTW:

Multi-

somewhat preventing untalented posters from participating, provided the deadline is tight...

That sentence doesn't actually mean anything. It's just empty words, really. No substance whatsoever.

loneraven25 said:...regardless of what was said above, I’m going to keep chaining my posts together one after another,
which should help prevent any less-than-talented writers from flooding the zone if the clock is ticking...
...otherwise, we run the risk of someone dumping an absolutely ridiculous amount of content in a tiny window of time...
...and honestly, doing this just makes the whole thread much easier to navigate and read through,
so I’ll continue to delete any Quoting without any prior warning,
provided that the quote refers back to a post written earlier in the thread...
(the only exception here would be the very first posts on subsequent pages)

And how exactly do you plan to account for the fact that not everyone has the same post count per page as you do? 🥳

Also, are you aware that if someone doesn't use Quoting to respond—even if they're just providing a brief sentence—several other people's posts can end up wedged between their reply and the original comment? It makes the whole thread a mess to follow.

What is the actual issue with users having more posts than the moderators feel they deserve? Is it a matter of your salary being tied to it?

...just like I was saying:

loneraven25 said:...regardless of what was said above, I’m going to keep chaining my posts together one after another,
which should help prevent any less-than-talented writers from flooding the zone if the clock is ticking...
...otherwise, we run the risk of someone dumping an absolutely ridiculous amount of content in a tiny window of time...
...and honestly, doing this just makes the whole thread much easier to navigate and read through,
so I’ll continue to delete any Quoting without any prior warning,
provided that the quote refers back to a post written earlier in the thread...
(the only exception here would be the very first posts on subsequent pages)

...look, if it happens that other users' posts "pop up" between your own entries,
there is an EDIT button specifically for fixing what you just wrote...
...and honestly, if someone can't figure out how to use that,
maybe they shouldn't be on a forum or even touching a computer in the first place...
...the issue regarding the higher volume of posts is really just about a shorter timeframe,
and my goal here isn't to play judge, but rather to keep this thread interesting and easy to follow,
by smoothing out those kinds of little glitches and anomalies...
...best regards, and thanks for understanding...

loneraven25 said:...just like I was saying:

...look, if it happens that other users' posts "pop up" between your own entries,
there is an EDIT button specifically for fixing what you just wrote...
...and honestly, if someone can't figure out how to use that,
maybe they shouldn't be on a forum or even touching a computer in the first place...
...the issue regarding the higher volume of posts is really just about a shorter timeframe,
and my goal here isn't to play judge, but rather to keep this thread interesting and easy to follow,
by smoothing out those kinds of little glitches and anomalies...
...best regards, and thanks for understanding...

I really hope you realize how ridiculous you sound right now. Nobody is born knowing everything—it’s not like everyone is expected to be a tech genius or a forum veteran from day one. And honestly, looking at the way you're justifying merging posts, it feels like you're just throwing a tantrum over anyone who registered eight minutes ago, while simultaneously acting like someone with decades of forum experience is somehow beneath you. If this stuff is getting under your skin that much, maybe hand the tools over to someone a bit more chill. 🤷

Anyway, I'm just rambling here—Byron would probably put this much better than I ever could. 😁

Help topic 😉
The master thread covering everything you need to know about how this forum works

Honestly, I don't see what the issue could be once you actually read through this thread.🤷
And figuring out how to edit a post isn't exactly rocket science. If you can figure out where to click to write a message or how to handle Quoting someone, you should be able to figure out how to edit.
It’s not some complex science, and the edit button isn't exactly hidden in a secret location where you can't find it.🤷

loneraven25 said:...just like I was saying:

...look, if it happens that other users' posts "pop up" between your own entries,
there is an EDIT button specifically for fixing what you just wrote...
...and honestly, if someone can't figure out how to use that,
maybe they shouldn't be on a forum or even touching a computer in the first place...
...the issue regarding the higher volume of posts is really just about a shorter timeframe,
and my goal here isn't to play judge, but rather to keep this thread interesting and easy to follow,
by smoothing out those kinds of little glitches and anomalies...
...best regards, and thanks for understanding...

Posts really shouldn't be merged if there are other entries sandwiched in between them, because that totally messes with the flow of the conversation and can make the whole discussion feel nonsensical. Just imagine someone asks a question, someone else replies, and then the first person refers back to that answer. If you merge the posts from before and after that reply, it's going to look like they commented on the answer before they even got it—or like the second person replied before the question was even asked—depending on whether the server merges the posts above or below the middle one. That just doesn't make any sense at all. 🙂 Posts should only be merged if they are sitting right next to each other in one continuous sequence.

Multi-

it wasn't my intention to imply that

Honestly, I think moderators ought to be creators themselves; after all, the very core of our mission here on this forum is the act of thinking. 🙂

Multi-quote

Alex Cook said:I really hope you realize how ridiculous you sound right now. Nobody is born knowing everything—it’s not like everyone is expected to be a tech genius or a forum veteran from day one. And honestly, looking at the way you're justifying merging posts, it feels like you're just throwing a tantrum over anyone who registered eight minutes ago, while simultaneously acting like someone with decades of forum experience is somehow beneath you. If this stuff is getting under your skin that much, maybe hand the tools over to someone a bit more chill. 🤷

Anyway, I'm just rambling here—Byron would probably put this much better than I ever could. 😁

...and you still haven't actually laid out any real reasons why you're so against Multi-quote.
All I can really take away from this whole thing is that your post is nothing more than a pale, washed-out shadow of Nicholas King’s legendary trolling...
Maybe I'll finally stop being so skeptical if you can actually manage to pull up even a single example where that term is mentioned? Multi-quote with both of them
Multi-quote

I honestly can't help but wonder what's going through their head lately. It feels like we're constantly circling the same drain with this one, doesn't it? says: Look, I get the rule itself—it’s perfectly clear what it says—but I can't help but wonder, what exactly is the point of it all? What's the underlying goal we're actually trying to achieve here?

...you clearly have no idea how to handle Quoting properly, do you?
You didn't even leave a hint in your post about where you actually pulled that quote from! Jack Bishop94 So, about that rule...
Multi-quote

rustydrifter10 said:Posts really shouldn't be merged if there are other entries sandwiched in between them, because that totally messes with the flow of the conversation and can make the whole discussion feel nonsensical. Just imagine someone asks a question, someone else replies, and then the first person refers back to that answer. If you merge the posts from before and after that reply, it's going to look like they commented on the answer before they even got it—or like the second person replied before the question was even asked—depending on whether the server merges the posts above or below the middle one. That just doesn't make any sense at all. 🙂 Posts should only be merged if they are sitting right next to each other in one continuous sequence.

Multi-

it wasn't my intention to imply that

Honestly, I think moderators ought to be creators themselves; after all, the very core of our mission here on this forum is the act of thinking. 🙂

I couldn't agree more on this point, because honestly, who does anyone think they are? No one should have the right to go back and mess with history or try to rewrite the timeline of posts that have already been laid down. Once it's written, it's set in stone.
I based my entire explanation on scanning through several consecutive posts—you know, those ones that certain forum members just can't seem to stop using all the time.
Multi-quote

rustydrifter10 said:Posts really shouldn't be merged if there are other entries sandwiched in between them, because that totally messes with the flow of the conversation and can make the whole discussion feel nonsensical. Just imagine someone asks a question, someone else replies, and then the first person refers back to that answer. If you merge the posts from before and after that reply, it's going to look like they commented on the answer before they even got it—or like the second person replied before the question was even asked—depending on whether the server merges the posts above or below the middle one. That just doesn't make any sense at all. 🙂 Posts should only be merged if they are sitting right next to each other in one continuous sequence.

Multi-

it wasn't my intention to imply that

Honestly, I think moderators ought to be creators themselves; after all, the very core of our mission here on this forum is the act of thinking. 🙂

...actually, like I was saying:
Multi-quote

loneraven25 said:...just like I was saying:

...look, if it happens that other users' posts "pop up" between your own entries,
there is an EDIT button specifically for fixing what you just wrote...
...and honestly, if someone can't figure out how to use that,
maybe they shouldn't be on a forum or even touching a computer in the first place...
...the issue regarding the higher volume of posts is really just about a shorter timeframe,
and my goal here isn't to play judge, but rather to keep this thread interesting and easy to follow,
by smoothing out those kinds of little glitches and anomalies...
...best regards, and thanks for understanding...

…

I had a feeling that as soon as I said, "It's not my place to judge," rustydrifter10 would be the first one to jump in... 😁

Carl Sanchez40 said:I had a feeling that as soon as I said, "It's not my place to judge," rustydrifter10 would be the first one to jump in... 😁

I guess I am pretty predictable. 😢

loneraven25 said:Multi-quote

...and you still haven't actually laid out any real reasons why you're so against Multi-quote.
All I can really take away from this whole thing is that your post is nothing more than a pale, washed-out shadow of Nicholas King’s legendary trolling...
Maybe I'll finally stop being so skeptical if you can actually manage to pull up even a single example where that term is mentioned? Multi-quote with both of them
Multi-quote

I honestly can't help but wonder what's going through their head lately. It feels like we're constantly circling the same drain with this one, doesn't it? says: Look, I get the rule itself—it’s perfectly clear what it says—but I can't help but wonder, what exactly is the point of it all? What's the underlying goal we're actually trying to achieve here?

...you clearly have no idea how to handle Quoting properly, do you?
You didn't even leave a hint in your post about where you actually pulled that quote from! Jack Bishop94 So, about that rule...
Multi-quote

I couldn't agree more on this point, because honestly, who does anyone think they are? No one should have the right to go back and mess with history or try to rewrite the timeline of posts that have already been laid down. Once it's written, it's set in stone.
I based my entire explanation on scanning through several consecutive posts—you know, those ones that certain forum members just can't seem to stop using all the time.
Multi-quote

...actually, like I was saying:
Multi-quote

…

My apologies—when I’m manually handling a quote like that, I'm not exactly pulling the post number from a closed thread just to slap it next to the author's name I added myself.

See, once a thread is closed, the 'quote' button vanishes—so everything is typed out by hand. Moving forward, I'll include the ellipsis and copy over the post number after the names I manually type, just so I don't end up looking like one of those people who clearly doesn't belong on this forum or even near a computer. Not.

I never merge posts. It’s just a complete waste of time. Sure, there might be those rare moments where merging wouldn't actually be a bad idea, but even then? I’m not doing it because I don't see a single damn reason to bother. And honestly, any rule trying to dictate—or even suggest—that people stop Multiquoting is just total nonsense.

Multi-quote

stormybadger8 said:Help topic 😉
The master thread covering everything you need to know about how this forum works

Honestly, I don't see what the issue could be once you actually read through this thread.🤷
And figuring out how to edit a post isn't exactly rocket science. If you can figure out where to click to write a message or how to handle Quoting someone, you should be able to figure out how to edit.
It’s not some complex science, and the edit button isn't exactly hidden in a secret location where you can't find it.🤷

Since we can't exactly go around throwing hard numbers around here, I guess we'll just have to lean on good old-fashioned intuition... Roughly speaking... I mean, we really need a solid method to actually gauge how many of these newly registered users are just... floating around? You know, those types who rarely log in, the ones who almost never post, or even worse—the folks whose "faith" won't let them touch the PDF forum Help, let alone actually sit down and read through any of these specific threads... or hell, they don't even bother opening the forum Help at all. Especially when you look at the threads regarding... Multiquote... And just putting it in... So, about those images on the forum... honestly, it’s a bit of a mess right now—just feels like everything is all over the place... There’s this decent-sized group of folks on here who’ve been registered for two years or more—veterans, if you can call them that—who are basically bleeding out trying to figure out how to upload a single image or, heaven forbid, use the Multi-quote feature... It’s honestly painful to watch. Most of them are just people with actual lives outside this screen, I guess, which apparently makes mastering basic forum tools an impossible task... 🙄🤣I mean, you can't really blame them for being clueless... they don't exactly live on the front lines like we do, grinding away 24/7, so these little skills seem totally trivial to them... whereas for us, it's just part of the daily grind...

P.S. Did your old man mention I sent my regards last night?... 😍

Multi-quote

loneraven25 said:Multi-quote

...and you still haven't actually laid out any real reasons why you're so against Multi-quote.
All I can really take away from this whole thing is that your post is nothing more than a pale, washed-out shadow of Nicholas King’s legendary trolling...
Maybe I'll finally stop being so skeptical if you can actually manage to pull up even a single example where that term is mentioned? Multi-quote with both of them
Multi-quote

I honestly can't help but wonder what's going through their head lately. It feels like we're constantly circling the same drain with this one, doesn't it? says: Look, I get the rule itself—it’s perfectly clear what it says—but I can't help but wonder, what exactly is the point of it all? What's the underlying goal we're actually trying to achieve here?

...you clearly have no idea how to handle Quoting properly, do you?
You didn't even leave a hint in your post about where you actually pulled that quote from! Jack Bishop94 So, about that rule...
Multi-quote

I couldn't agree more on this point, because honestly, who does anyone think they are? No one should have the right to go back and mess with history or try to rewrite the timeline of posts that have already been laid down. Once it's written, it's set in stone.
I based my entire explanation on scanning through several consecutive posts—you know, those ones that certain forum members just can't seem to stop using all the time.
Multi-quote

...actually, like I was saying:
Multi-quote

…

You’re the one who started this whole trolling mess—nothing but your own useless, brainless commentary dragging us all down...

Multi-quote

Maybe I’ll finally stop being such a skeptic if you can actually manage to pull up even one single example where that term actually gets used... Multi-quote with both of them...

quote