• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Good Posting Practices

maybe they could be limited to single threads ? would make the whats-new results page a lot tidier and focussed while dealing with the what-were-you-doing-5-minutes-ago endless duplication

In principle, we could collapse all the "What Are You ..." (etc.) threads into a single (e.g.) "What's Up With You?" thread. However ...

- As Yith pointed out, it would be huge and unwieldy.
- It wouldn't prevent members from creating additional trivia threads as time goes on.
- There's the issue of achieving consensus on what should be merged into such a catch-all trivia thread.
 
The posting of blind links (links alone, without any introductory or explanatory text) is discouraged as bad posting practice.

In the past week there have been blind links posted in the Profile Posts (the little posts displayed on the top-level forums / entry page).

Profile Posts are intended to be concise comments concerning a given user's status.

For this and other reasons, posting blind links in Profile Posts is considered even less appropriate than posting them in regular posts within thread.

Please do not post blind links within the Profile Posts.
 
A simple reminder (no names, no pack-drill):

A) Please quote a sample and a title for any article you link to--especially when starting a thread.

B) Please post direct links to the article's URL, not links that go through news aggregators or Google.

Appreciated.
 
whatever happened to good old-fashioned aggressive-aggressive
 
If it's a news story, just check NEW POSTS.

We've had the Tiger twice and Snowden twice (or arguably three times).

Yesterday we had the 'tossing coins into aeroplane engines' story on three separate threads and today we've had news of Derek Acorah's death on three threads.

It takes but a few moments to search.

Plus, if it's current news, then SEARCH > ADVANCED SEARCH will allow you to set the date parameter to the past day or two.
 
Yesterday we had the 'tossing coins into aeroplane engines' story on three separate threads and today we've had news of Derek Acorah's death on three threads.

It takes but a few moments to search.

Plus, if it's current news, then SEARCH > ADVANCED SEARCH will allow you to set the date parameter to the past day or two.
And also can we make sure that we spell titles correctly as it makes searching very difficult otherwise.
 
The mods appear to be running ragged these days keeping culture wars and politics out of the discussions. Many thanks for their efforts, and it might be easier to save some time by looking at new threads up front. For example, people dismantling statues for known reasons is hardly Fortean or paranormal or unexplained. (I didn't open the thread in question because, well, no mystery.) If a statue as found fallen with no apparent cause, that might be a subject for discussion.
 
This is a note on copying text from articles for newer members who haven't spotted the protocol.

We'd be grateful if you would:-

A) Please always include the headline, the author and the date of the article.

B) Please quote only an extract: certainly not more than two or three good-sized paragraphs, but these needn't be contiguous, and they needed be the first. Give us only the meat of the argument, not the breadsticks or the coffee.

C) Note that the fact that a publisher has already or may in the future decide to limit access to an article is not a legitimate reason to reproduce the entire text.

D) Please include at least a brief personal opinion and/or some contextualisation that shows why you are presenting the article to readers.

E) Please re-format the article extract to ensure it is readable. In particular, add line-breaks for paragraphs and remove advertising, images and their consequently orphaned captions.

F) Please provide a link that leads directly to the article, not one that goes via a third-party app or search engine.
 
Already done.

The problem is that there are thirteen other threads pinned in this forum, so I can only guarantee it remains in the top 1/3 of the first page.

Am I guilty of not practicing these methods? I can barely keep track of the postings I make so many all over the internet. I really do want to be a good member but, I think I will need to be told/shown what I did so that I don't do it again. I don't want anyone to think that if it happens I am purposely being disrespectful. Each board I belong to has different practices.

I honestly have a terrible memory since reaching menopause and it has been on going for 15 years now. I mean, the bad memory part is ongoing. So are the hot flashes. lol
 
Am I guilty of not practicing these methods? I can barely keep track of the postings I make so many all over the internet. I really do want to be a good member but, I think I will need to be told/shown what I did so that I don't do it again. I don't want anyone to think that if it happens I am purposely being disrespectful. Each board I belong to has different practices.

I honestly have a terrible memory since reaching menopause and it has been on going for 15 years now. I mean, the bad memory part is ongoing. So are the hot flashes. lol

Do your best and we'll sort out any mistakes.

Certainly don't worry about it.
 
I was going to post about the potential use of a heat ray. (because heat ray!) but was weighing against it because the article is about use in american political protests. But I searched and saw I was beaten to the posting by a mod. Should I message mods if I want to make a post about a fortean subjects in the future if there is politics rule potential?

There's no hard and fast answer, because it's all a matter of context and framing. This alone means it's probably better to contact the staff if you're not sure about the boundaries.

The prohibition concerning "politics" most clearly pertains to comments and postings relating to specific political entities (officials; parties; groups; etc.) and their endless quests to obtain (a) relative advantage in the electorate's eyes and / or (b) power.

It also clearly applies to comments and postings which promote (or denigrate) one or another political belief, group or position. This latter aspect is prohibited by the forum's Terms & Conditions.

Using this specific case for illustration ...

The quoting of the cited news item was stripped of the bits pertaining to the incident that have proven controversial and been used as ammunition to slur one or another "political" stance or group. The quoted excerpt was tailored to maintain the focus on the thread's topic (a 'heat ray'), its existence and its perceived availability for use. In other words, the post was configured so as to highlight the heat ray aspect with minimal regard to the protest situation and / or how someone was alleged to have played that situation to his own "political" advantage.

This framing was further reinforced by the introductory comment simply stating the 'heat ray' was in the news again.

If you follow the source citation link to the full article, you'll see that article's latter paragraphs addressing a different non-lethal weapon system, the hearings within which the subject came up, and the protest response for which someone had inquired about the 'heat ray' were omitted from the post.
 
A couple of times in recent memory we've had members posting links to the contents of the Google Drive (cloud storage).
It would be preferred if, whenever possible, files are uploaded directly to this site as attachments instead.

If the file in question exceeds the 2mb limit, an image could be shrunk or short .pdfs disassembled into their constituent pages. If you're really stuck, PM me or @EnolaGaia and we'll find a way to get it on the board.

The concern is a security one. It might actually be all fine and dandy, but we're not inclined to start investigating while other options are available.
 
A reminder: please do not post 'bare links' with no indication of the content they point to.

Best practice is to include an extract of a couple of paragraphs of the text being linked to as well as some personal comment as to why you are posting it and what aspects of the material readers might like to consider.

Also, when posting news stories, please post a direct link to the article in question; you'll have to strip out the 'amp' and 'referrer' parts generated by Google and Twitter from those long URLS to get the unadulterated URL we need.

More specifics were supplied here:

This is a note on copying text from articles for newer members who haven't spotted the protocol.

We'd be grateful if you would:-

A) Please always include the headline, the author and the date of the article.

B) Please quote only an extract: certainly not more than two or three good-sized paragraphs, but these needn't be contiguous, and they needed be the first. Give us only the meat of the argument, not the breadsticks or the coffee.

C) Note that the fact that a publisher has already or may in the future decide to limit access to an article is not a legitimate reason to reproduce the entire text. [Added to say: if the site looks 'flimsy' and may well go offline with material elsewhere, copy the whole text and add a note to say why].

D) Please include at least a brief personal opinion and/or some contextualisation that shows why you are presenting the article to readers.

E) Please re-format the article extract to ensure it is readable. In particular, add line-breaks for paragraphs and remove advertising, images and their consequently orphaned captions.

F) Please provide a link that leads directly to the article, not one that goes via a third-party app or search engine.
 
Thread Titles
  1. We don't need chapter and verse.
  2. Full headlines from articles are frequently too long--they display badly on many devices.
  3. If possible, keep in mind key words for which members might search: names, years, places etc.
  4. For a number of reasons, some based on former versions of the board, capitalising every word is the least worst option.
  5. Final full-stops / periods may be omitted.
  6. Artful puns are to be applauded but not at the cost of clarity.
Accordingly:

The real life Hull exorcist battling evil spirits who set a woman on fire and threw him down the stairs

Is now:

Hull Exorcist Battles Spirits Who Set Woman Alight And Threw Him Downstairs
 
Accordingly:

The real life Hull exorcist battling evil spirits who set a woman on fire and threw him down the stairs

Is now:

Hull Exorcist Battles Spirits Who Set Woman Alight And Threw Him Downstairs

That thread title is a proper spoiler.
 
How about

Evil Spirits! Exorcist! Fire! Stairs! Hull!

Well, it's punchy...

But to reiterate (because it's been forced off the last page now).

Would members please take note of the following tips:

This is a note on copying text from articles for newer members who haven't spotted the protocol.

We'd be grateful if you would:-

A) Please always include the headline, the author and the date of the article.

B) Please quote only an extract: certainly not more than two or three good-sized paragraphs, but these needn't be contiguous, and they needed be the first. Give us only the meat of the argument, not the breadsticks or the coffee.

C) Note that the fact that a publisher has already or may in the future decide to limit access to an article is not a legitimate reason to reproduce the entire text.

D) Please include at least a brief personal opinion and/or some contextualisation that shows why you are presenting the article to readers.

E) Please re-format the article extract to ensure it is readable. In particular, add line-breaks for paragraphs and remove advertising, images and their consequently orphaned captions.

F) Please provide a link that leads directly to the article, not one that goes via a third-party app or search engine.
 
All current members of the board have consented to the Terms & Rules of Use from which the following is extracted:

Content Types We Discourage or Prohibit
Do not submit for public access or viewing any Content that represents private, confidential, or personally identifiable data relating to you or anyone else. Your rights and privileges with regard to your personal data are specified in the Service's Privacy Policy available elsewhere in this site's Help section. If you submit personal data so as to expose it to public viewing, you agree to accept full and sole responsibility for your submission and any consequences deriving therefrom.
You agree not to use the Service to submit or link to any Content that is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, that invites or inflames discord (e.g., "trolling"), or serves solely to promote a particular political, religious, or commercial interest or agenda (excluding announcements of relevance to the Service's thematic scope).
You also agree not to use the Service to submit or link to any Content that contains adult or objectionable content, contains the personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws.
You are entirely responsible for the contents of, and any harm resulting from, both your Content and your conduct while using this Service.
Full Text:
It has recently been brought to our attention that posts have appeared on the board that directly accuse a public figure of a serious crime. This is not the first time that we have seen such things, but we've previously dealt with them on a case-by-case basis--the thread on Madeleine McCann's disappearance comes to mind.

We must state at the outset that we are not (in our capacity as moderators for the board) concerned with the truth or falsehood of these latest statements, nor do we believe that there is in this case any serious risk that legal consequences may ensue; nonetheless, we are anxious that members infer no precedent from the continued presence of these remarks, lest similar accusations be levied at more litigious individuals in the future. For this reason, they will shortly be removed.

As may be seen from the text quoted above, the management of this board disclaims all responsibility for the content of members' posts: although we may (rarely) elect to remove content with which we would not want the community and the CFI's names associated, we generally leave each of you to consider the laws in force it your own jurisdiction and post accordingly. Although the board is now hosted in the United States and accordingly enjoys the more robust legal protections of free-speech granted there, the majority of the membership is not.

Back in 2001, when the first incarnation of the board appeared, the Internet was a strikingly different place; in practical if not strictly legal terms, the public had far greater leeway for the expression of personal belief without the fear of lawyers' letters, service bans or (more recently) public campaigns against service providers.

Then is not now.

While we are confident that it is still possible to safely communicate most ideas, when it come to the class of potentially defamatory accusations against living figures, if such comments must be made, it will require the intelligent inclusion of appropriate caveats and qualifications.

We cannot permit posts of the type:
  • Joe Bloggs is a bloody murderer.
  • Jane Doe is a paedophile.
Obviously such advice is not intended to cover satire, creative literature and other non-literal usages, but we'd still implore you to be circumspect and remember that there is a troubling trend across much of the developed world for public statements to be mendaciously read in mock-naïve isolation, shorn of all considerations of context and intention.

The last thing we want is for anybody here to fall foul of this.
 
The Mod Squad has been discussing a handful of associated issues in camera for some time now, and it would seem as good a moment as any to spill our brains to the membership.

We don't have any infallible yardstick with which to measure this, but we're now all in agreement that the level of 'drive-by' posting has been on the rise for quite some time.

1. One such issue is the increasing number of instances where members 'drop' photographs or videos (usually YouTube) without any contextualising or editorial comment.

The reasons, generally speaking, why this is undesirable are that:
  • Videos frequently move or disappear, leaving a trail or broken links and zero clues as to where replacements can be found.
  • Those browsing the board using 'accessibility aids' of various flavours are often stumped by the lack of explicatory text and tags, and are hence excluded from portions of otherwise intelligible threads.
  • It subverts the whole 'discussion' concept that we've always sought to promote alongside the archive function that the board has developed.
If members could, therefore, really make an effort to bear this in mind when posting 'visual' material, it would be an improvement.

2. Another problem--and this one is more of a problem than a matter of etiquette or convenience--is what we could probably drop any pretence and call the spamming of threads.

It wasn't wholly uncommon to see single members make multiple successive posts in short succession in the CHAT sub-forum, but this tendency has now spilt over onto threads in the Fortean fora and is most unwelcome. It is extremely off-putting for lurkers, non-posting or new members to find that on clicking to see the most recent post on a promisingly titled thread that the half of the last page comprises multiple consecutive posts by a single user who has explicably uploaded only one image, one video, one sentence or one word per post.

We have charitably merged and moved many such posts, but we consider the practice to be antisocial and will issue warnings if it continues. There is speculation that such a habit is acquired via social media, and that certain members are hoping for a 'high score' in terms of POST COUNT or LIKES; whether this is the case or not, it isn't on.

3. Similarly, tangents and sidebars, notes and footnotes to subjects are often interesting, and we very frequently attempt to preserve and transplant interesting digressions, but it's a surprising amount of trouble to do so, and when tangents upon tangents take us from, say, night terrors to cooking tips for asparagus, we are led to wonder whether some regular posters are actually reading the thread title before they post. At times, it resembles a game of Chinese Whispers, with posters referring only to the most recent contributions when writing.

4. Humour. Often what can be witty, bathetic, incisive and pithy in small quantities turns out to be tedious in the extreme when drawn out over multiple months or multiple pages. No doubt the frequency with which we post 'nudges' such as the one you are now reading leads some among you to think that we delete posts on a daily basis according only to the vagaries of personal taste. I can assure you, however, that only a tiny percentage actually 'get the flush'. To refer back to point 2, it is equally off-putting for members--perhaps the less frequent variety--to find very long stretches of a thread taken up with one-liners about the town of Cromer or the atavism of farmers, for instance. From this point on, this is the kind of thing that certainly will get the flush, because when such comments outweigh meaningful material on a thread, it gives the impression that the discussion is over and the topic is dead.

5. The SEARCH function largely works. This was not the case for many years, but it is now. Further, we've done an awful lot of work to make sure that topics are well tagged, that thread titles reflect content, and that the contents of the various sub-fora are correct. Please take a minute or two to check which is the best place for your new material, not just where it might kinda fit. The opening gambit of 'Mods feel free to move this' sounds admirably flexible, but it's actually an invitation for us to do what we'd prefer you to do for yourself.

6. Finally, I'm not here to tell anybody what to believe, but our advice--often delivered by private message when consulted-- is that if you happen to find yourself in a bad-tempered argument about an issue that can't conceivably be covered by the Fortean umbrella, how about you just drop it and walk away? It doesn't mean you lost the debate, it usually means that you found your sense of perspective. We don't convene here to put the world to rights or reshape society; they're just idle sidelines for when there's not much of greater interest on the radar. If you ever find yourself typing the cliche 'this is not political, but...,' I'd suggest that you're posting the equivalent of a giant neon sign that warns us that you're about to waste everybody's time with material that will not remain visible for long.

As usual, we're not interested in reading a flood of reports about what Posters A, B and C posted in 1999, but from this point on, we'd really like members who may have been guilty of some (or all) of the above--and I don't exclude myself or other moderators from that group--to up their game.

tenor-2.gif
 
I do occasionally do a couple of consecutive posts, but if I do it's usually because I want to address previous posts from different posters and the points have nothing to do with each other. I hope that's not unacceptable?
 
I do occasionally do a couple of consecutive posts, but if I do it's usually because I want to address previous posts from different posters and the points have nothing to do with each other. I hope that's not unacceptable?
No, that's fine - I'm guilty myself, just fortunate to be able to edit limitlessly so can always merge posts, etc.
'm going to side with the Heartless Establishment on this particular issue. .. Nine times out of ten the `humour` amounts to empty banter between long term posters swopping ancient in-jokes amongst themselves.
This is what we're driving at. There is always room for wit, but wit relies on relevance, and - as it's already been cited as a case in point - just replying "Ha that's normal for Cromer!!!" in a completely unrelated, otherwise cogent and constructive thread doesn't generate hilarity among the other participants. At best they ignore it, and worst they get actively irritated by it. As has been pointed out, there is a thread for Cromer-related sallies and bon mot. Just keep them there.
 
I do occasionally do a couple of consecutive posts, but if I do it's usually because I want to address previous posts from different posters and the points have nothing to do with each other. I hope that's not unacceptable?

Speaking only for myself (as an archives rummager, topic sorter and editor of the forum's voluminous material) I'd call that the preferred approach.

It gets very laborious and frustrating to have to split posts containing multiple different points or subjects into multiple pieces (one per point / subject) when disentangling threads that have become convoluted thickets of comments about who-knows-what in addition to the thread's stated topic.

If you want to address a single topic / point made earlier by multiple posters, it's fine to quote them all and make your response.

If you want to address multiple distinct topics / points addressed by multiple posters, it's much better to do it one-by-one. This is not just for mod convenience - it helps other members find and / or read the bits specific to a given topic / point.
 
Speaking only for myself (as an archives rummager, topic sorter and editor of the forum's voluminous material) I'd call that the preferred approach.
As that is what EnolaGaia does, I would follow that advice. He does the most heavy-lifting in that direction.

As said, if it's on exactly the same topic but responding to separate posters, however, you can safely stick to the one post.
 
The Mod Squad has been discussing a handful of associated issues in camera for some time now, and it would seem as good a moment as any to spill our brains to the membership.

We don't have any infallible yardstick with which to measure this, but we're now all in agreement that the level of 'drive-by' posting has been on the rise for quite some time.

1. One such issue is the increasing number of instances where members 'drop' photographs or videos (usually YouTube) without any contextualising or editorial comment.

The reasons, generally speaking, why this is undesirable are that:
  • Videos frequently move or disappear, leaving a trail or broken links and zero clues as to where replacements can be found.
  • Those browsing the board using 'accessibility aids' of various flavours are often stumped by the lack of explicatory text and tags, and are hence excluded from portions of otherwise intelligible threads.
  • It subverts the whole 'discussion' concept that we've always sought to promote alongside the archive function that the board has developed.
If members could, therefore, really make an effort to bear this in mind when posting 'visual' material, it would be an improvement.

2. Another problem--and this one is more of a problem than a matter of etiquette or convenience--is what we could probably drop any pretence and call the spamming of threads.

It wasn't wholly uncommon to see single members make multiple successive posts in short succession in the CHAT sub-forum, but this tendency has now spilt over onto threads in the Fortean fora and is most unwelcome. It is extremely off-putting for lurkers, non-posting or new members to find that on clicking to see the most recent post on a promisingly titled thread that the half of the last page comprises multiple consecutive posts by a single user who has explicably uploaded only one image, one video, one sentence or one word per post.

We have charitably merged and moved many such posts, but we consider the practice to be antisocial and will issue warnings if it continues. There is speculation that such a habit is acquired via social media, and that certain members are hoping for a 'high score' in terms of POST COUNT or LIKES; whether this is the case or not, it isn't on.

3. Similarly, tangents and sidebars, notes and footnotes to subjects are often interesting, and we very frequently attempt to preserve and transplant interesting digressions, but it's a surprising amount of trouble to do so, and when tangents upon tangents take us from, say, night terrors to cooking tips for asparagus, we are led to wonder whether some regular posters are actually reading the thread title before they post. At times, it resembles a game of Chinese Whispers, with posters referring only to the most recent contributions when writing.

4. Humour. Often what can be witty, bathetic, incisive and pithy in small quantities turns out to be tedious in the extreme when drawn out over multiple months or multiple pages. No doubt the frequency with which we post 'nudges' such as the one you are now reading leads some among you to think that we delete posts on a daily basis according only to the vagaries of personal taste. I can assure you, however, that only a tiny percentage actually 'get the flush'. To refer back to point 2, it is equally off-putting for members--perhaps the less frequent variety--to find very long stretches of a thread taken up with one-liners about the town of Cromer or the atavism of farmers, for instance. From this point on, this is the kind of thing that certainly will get the flush, because when such comments outweigh meaningful material on a thread, it gives the impression that the discussion is over and the topic is dead.

5. The SEARCH function largely works. This was not the case for many years, but it is now. Further, we've done an awful lot of work to make sure that topics are well tagged, that thread titles reflect content, and that the contents of the various sub-fora are correct. Please take a minute or two to check which is the best place for your new material, not just where it might kinda fit. The opening gambit of 'Mods feel free to move this' sounds admirably flexible, but it's actually an invitation for us to do what we'd prefer you to do for yourself.

6. Finally, I'm not here to tell anybody what to believe, but our advice--often delivered by private message when consulted-- is that if you happen to find yourself in a bad-tempered argument about an issue that can't conceivably be covered by the Fortean umbrella, how about you just drop it and walk away? It doesn't mean you lost the debate, it usually means that you found your sense of perspective. We don't convene here to put the world to rights or reshape society; they're just idle sidelines for when there's not much of greater interest on the radar. If you ever find yourself typing the cliche 'this is not political, but...,' I'd suggest that you're posting the equivalent of a giant neon sign that warns us that you're about to waste everybody's time with material that will not remain visible for long.

As usual, we're not interested in reading a flood of reports about what Posters A, B and C posted in 1999, but from this point on, we'd really like members who may have been guilty of some (or all) of the above--and I don't exclude myself or other moderators from that group--to up their game.

View attachment 37027

Nothing new to add, but I'm 'quoting' the above message for the benefit of anybody who missed it:

PLEASE READ THE POST ABOVE.

We'll move the intervening posts about SEARCH tips when we get the opportunity.
 
I'm convinced that being a mod on any forum can be a pretty thankless task, so no criticism from me about what the mods require. But there is a danger of taking forums and what is said on them too seriously. Anyone is free to take a forum or leave it, the same with any threads or posts. Not compulsory to read posts about Cromer or any other subject. But I hope the forum won't get so stifled with rules and regulations that people are wary of posting. Personally I come here for some light relief from the vagaries , despite the fact that some threads are very serious indeed. An injection of humour can sometimes lift a thread and thread drift can lead onto other interesting discussions. I remain hopeful that the nature of the forum, which makes it so attractive to many, will not change.
 
Back
Top