Advice: Readable Posts

[Phuein]

Fatigue. Repulsion. Disinterest. Confusion. Those are some of the emotions that come to mind, when I see a thread or post that includes page-loads of text, page-length paragraphs, and no italics or bold text, or other markings, whatsoever.

 

So, here are some useful tips I've learned throughout the years, browsing the majestic internet. Each makes discussions and information sharing more accessible and appealing.

 

1. Keep paragraphs short. As short as possible! Each paragraph relays an idea; if the idea requires more than four or five sentences, then split it. It probably already leaked towards another idea, or sub-idea, as it is. Don't be ashamed of one or two phrase paragraphs!

 

2. Don't answer yourself in the same post. In other words, if you feel that you've continued writing into your own response (of the idea you started writing about, in the same post), then it makes sense to simply get to the point. Only write the response, or final idea. Your approach can be cleared, if necessary, later on.

 

3. Draw your text. Especially, if it is rather long, or feels complicated, even a bit. What do I mean? Use italics, bold, underlines, different fonts, different sizes, and even different colors! Each can be used to emphasize or de-emphasize an idea. You want others to read your text, as they would hear it, as if you were speaking it aloud. Also, you want them to notice some things, more than others, naturally.

 

4. And finally, keep each post short! Yes, even though you can/could/would/might/want to say more, you need to deserve the effort of your readers, first! After you write anything, go over it, and try to keep it as simple and short, as you literararily (mind the pun) can. If Stefan's daughter can't/won't get it, neither will anyone else.

 

Cheers.

[Iconoclastic]

2. Don't answer yourself in the same post. - Why not?

[dsayers]

Answering yourself--more accurately: sharing your answer with others to a question you asked--can actually make text communication more efficient.

 

Also, I think point 4 is a good one on your average forums. However here, you have very in depth analysis and difficult personal sharings. Both can be lengthy and the latter can actually lead to less coherent communication. Given the circumstances, I'm okay with both. In fact, there was once a thread that I didn't much feel like bothering with in the moment, but it's monstrous length told me it was important to the person, so I made the time.

 

The other thing to consider is that not everybody is on a PC with a keyboard. Some people might be using their phones or even dictation. I've seen a few posts that are rife with phonetic flaws that tell me the person was likely speaking it. That's not to say that encouraging being better at this sort of thing isn't beneficial to us all. If it were me, I would certainly take the few seconds to add a few carriage returns. Then again, I subscribe to the line of thinking that my (one person) few seconds leads to saving a few seconds for many other people.

 

It's a good thread and I hope to see some beneficial dialogue arise from it.

[Kevin Beal]

I agree, generally.

 

I don't think that short posts is necessarily better. If we required arguments to be short, then I can't imagine why you'd be into this show

 

I think there is a problem with long posts that make a point simply for the sake of providing further evidence, or to drive a point home that has already been made well enough already (I'm speaking more about myself here than anyone else ). Rather I think that if you are trying to bring someone to an important conclusion, you do it by recreating the process you go through in thinking about things.

 

Often in the more loosely structured podcasts, you can relate to what Stef is saying because he's talking about the kinds of things he thinks about with reference to some sort of standard for determining the truth. It's almost as if he's relearning the conclusions.

 

Some things need to be long in order to be communicated effectively.

 

If you think about the last book you read, you can probably determine afterward whether or not you would liked it to have been shorter or longer. Drama of the Gifted Child was probably about the right length, I think. Brave New World was not long enough IMO. And For Your Own Good was too long, I thought. And they are the right or wrong length for a variety of reasons.

 

So, to talk about posts needing to be short without reference to any of the actual content seems, at least to me, to not make a whole lot of sense.

 

Certainly people frequenting a message board are not likely to want to read a gigantic post, since the format is supposed to be a back and forth, but I can forgive a person for writing a long post about something they are passionate about and requires some context.

 

There are occasionally some people who come on the boards to write a long proof for god's existence (somewhere in the aether), but I don't think that the problem with those posts is that they are long, if you know what I mean

[MysterionMuffles]

I'm just in favour for proper pargraphing...hell even dotted lists can be helpful.

[Wesley]

I'm just in favour for proper pargraphing...hell even dotted lists can be helpful.

I agree.

 

If you do nothing else, but hit return in between thoughts, things get 10x more readable.

[Phuein]

I'm just in favour for proper pargraphing...hell even dotted lists can be helpful.

 

Yeah, if anything, then that.

 

 

2. Don't answer yourself in the same post. - Why not?

 

This is a tip that makes each post more readable & accessible. Naturally, it depends on the conversation and the idea discussed, but in many discussions people have their disagreements. The conversation has less text and more understanding, when people don't insist on putting emphasis on their own specific notion.

 

This tip is more important for argumentative discussions, really. It takes time and patience to reach an understanding, and that should be that purpose of arguments.

 

Do notice the purpose of these tips. They are not always relevant, but they do always work for the benefit of the reader. 

[dsayers]

The conversation has less text and more understanding, when people don't insist on putting emphasis on their own specific notion.

 

This tip is more important for argumentative discussions, really. It takes time and patience to reach an understanding, and that should be that purpose of arguments.

 

How does withholding information lead to reaching an understanding? Couldn't providing one answer (either side) help the other person to understand the nature of the lack of understanding? Wouldn't this lead to a response better tailored for the specifics of the discussion?

 

Note that the final question could be phrased as a statement that would provoke response. I did that to challenge the idea that question and answer are of differing usefulness or even identity.

[Iconoclastic]

Also: I don't like using bold in a sentence. Bold is used at the top of a paragraph or section. Like:

 

A Consortium of Pedantics

Many a men have made efforts online to thwart the style and grammar nazi's to their rightful places. However, the nazi's keep coming. Due to the nature of internet, it's easy access, computer hardware becoming more and more affordable to more and more people, combined with people from all sort of walks of life, average and below average intelligence, inability to critically judge their own thoughts and actions, the know-it-alls will persist for a while.

 

How to Deal With Them

Well, that depends on who you ask. Some will say the civil thing to do is challenge them. Others say ignore them. Others can't wrap their head around it and tell themselves "If you can't beat them, join them". My advice is: humor them. In a sarcastic manner. But keep it civilised.

 

If you want to use bold at all.

[Phuein]

If you want to use bold at all.

 

Haha  Fair enough, if you prefer the rules of your local university.

 

 

How does withholding information lead to reaching an understanding?

 

Overwhelming the readers with your information would not lead to the expected results. The point is to keep short, as to avoid confusion. Naturally, if keeping "too short" will create confusion, then it's better to write more.

 

It's a tender balance, I feel. 

[dsayers]

Overwhelming the readers with your information would not lead to the expected results. The point is to keep short, as to avoid confusion. Naturally, if keeping "too short" will create confusion, then it's better to write more.

 

It's a tender balance, I feel. 

 

I don't disagree. What you're describing here though is a subjective variable. Whereas, "don't answer yourself in the same post" is an objective absolute. That's all I was trying to point out

 

For what it's worth, this thread and the conversation that has ensued has inspired me to make more use of formatting.