The three-sentence quote limit
 

Can't the mods/admin just put a message at the top of the main menu informing people about the quote limit? I've seen such informational messages on another forum I use, surely this would save a lot of trouble if any of the mods/admin know how to do it.

I don't know. Red Stickies don't seem to do much.
Not many have read the Rules under FAQ ---so seems like a good idea.
Thanks.
Reminds me of the Airline Staff showing us what to do if we crash. :tongue:

Also a message about the 3 sentence quote rule of other member's posts. Might as well also add it to the forum rules page, since admins are enforcing the 3 quote limit to other member's posts.

It is being looked into


Namaste

^^Good stuff, I imagine it must be a bit of a pain in the neck for you guys moderating the forum so hopefully something can be done to make your lives easier.
I tend to scroll right past the red stickies myself to be honest, though a message in big, bright letters at the top of the main menu should be much harder to miss.

Aren't new members given a link to the forum's rules when they join up? Thought I remembered that, could be wrong though.

In my opinion and as a counterweight to the restricting three sentence quote, we should have a rule that any and all responses should be of at least five full lines and should have something to do with the theme of the thread.

These constant 'I agree George' and 'good post Fred' are a waste of space, block off a normal continuation of the thread and apart from adding to the number of posts serve no other purpose.

Well, that won't be happenin'! I say that unofficially.
I don't think there is any hint of a feeling about stifling anyone's expression.
But, I think ideas are always welcome, Busby. I say that officially. :)

can't find
 

I'm not being awkward but I've been unable to find the "three sentence quote limit" reference in the 'Rules' section.

Could someone please point it out?

As with agreements when we subscribe to a new service or open an account etc. I expect few of us truly read through and understand the sometimes astonishingly-long list of do's and don'ts we agree to.

I would hope/expect most reasonable individuals would comply with rules that are simple and make sense - no swearing or defamation etc - but my guess is few actually study each and every rule.

Perhaps the most important and relevant ones ought to be summarized and posted at the top of all the rest?

This is a new rule as some quotes were taking up too much space. some were really long,
we were told to cut them down due to space.
so it was taking down to two three at the most lines.
any more and it would be deleted.
We had to bring it similar to the Copy and paste.

Copy-Paste: One or two lines at most of relevant text of material from other sites or sources and a link to the relevant text for further reading is allowed on the condition that the author is credited and the source linked is not a commercial site (promoting or selling goods or services). Quotes of religious texts such as the Bible or Quran must also be no more than one or two lines. Posts that quote or copy-paste more than one or two short lines of text will be removed or edited. Repeatedly breaching this rule will lead to warnings and possible Disciplinary Action.


Namaste

I got the impression the three-sentence Quote rule was in the 'Rules' section....

I had already found the Copy and Paste two-sentence one, presumably introduced to stop idiots who like to copy large sections of text from wherever and then paste them pointlessly and obstructively in an active thread - I get that.

The three sentence one isn't a problem provided folk know how to use editing tools - it's not difficult - because the whole posting can initially be quoted, establishing the context of one's response, and then most of the quoted text can be deleted before posting the response. The way I showed earlier as an example.

I haven't been able to work out how to only quote 3 sentences .:confused: ,I just type in the part that I want to refer to.:redface:

Sure that's ok...But just click Quote and the entire quote comes up, right?
Highlight all but the sentences you want, click Delete on your keyboard or Backspace...Voila! All gone but the 3 sentences!
Also if you would like say, 'from Post #37'.

Highlight the piece or the sentences you want to get rid of, press and hold the full-stop / period symbol to add the dots and to show you've deleted some text - leave enough text to show what you're responding to - like I've just done above - job done!

Practice with a real posting then use the 'Preview Post' to see what it looks like. Keep fiddling about until you're happy with what you've achieved and then just discard the whole thing without posting it.

bobjob, the quote makes no sense chopping off words like you do. At least place one full sentence.
Nothing wrong with 3 full sentences.

That was just an example of how a member could thin out the number of characters, words, lines - or sentences. It's the same same principle whichever and you could easily leave one sentence or three sentences.

For me it makes no sense in routinely thinning sentences anyway but it's what's decreed so it's what I do. :smile:

blessings :hug3:

Thanks for the help Miss Hepburn and bobjob.Problem solved,I'll do that next time I need it.:smile:

I find this rule highly annoying and I don't see the point of it either.
Oftentimes you want to react to the whole lot of a previous posting but with 3 sentences the essence gets lost and there's no point in replying at all anymore.
OR you have to create 3 line quotes within your reply again and again which is awfully time consuming and annoying.

If it has to do with server space... get rid of old topics or get more server space.
Many people have coughed up money, so much that we were told it was enough for years. Then the least you can do is make sure we can use the forum normally.
And implement the policy -which can be automatically done even- that older & inactive topics get removed.

Yes it's annoying and may not solve problems so much as creating them for active members. But we have to do what's decided by those charged with operating the website and there are easy-enough workarounds.

I doubt it makes any more than a scrat of difference to file size hence server storage space but I'm in no position to be able to substantiate my doubts.

How the website operates is the province of those with that responsibility. We're privileged we get to use this wonderful resource without charge - FREE! Let's reflect on that, eh?

There are 2M posts, and most of them are old and in inactive threads.

What people do sometimes is that they take out of their website everything which dates more than xx months, put it in a archived section still available for reading only, and only run the software with the new posts and threads.

That would mean exporting the old threads to a static site. Then deleting the old content from the forum. Maybe vBulletin has got that functionality.

Ha, actually the static site already exists.
https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/archive/

Admins, do you know if you can delete a thread without deleting from the archive? Maybe "archiving" a thread would just do that?

Forums are free, have always been free. And it could be debated if it truly is as many paid to keep it running. That was people's own choice of course, and in that sense, to each their own.

As I see it the only reason this still exists is because there are no decent alternatives anymore as everything moved to FB.

In any case, I don't think a 3 line rule does much as it is all text only anyways. Especially not as there was already the automatic deletion of prior quotes so you only quoted the last post, not an entire discussion.

Some forum-based websites are indeed free to set up and they are mostly and perhaps always free for subscribers to them..... But we all know there's no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody or some organisation has to cover the costs involved when operating a website.
I'm not persuaded it could be debated sensibly without knowing details. As for me I just say kudos to anyone who has contributed to the running costs and kudos to the moderators and administrators who volunteer their time so I and many others get the benefit of being able to use this website and its many forums. :smile:
I disagree.
I think I'd already made a similar point. But like it or not the 3 sentence rule is in place and we should respect the rules of this website if we wish to continue enjoying the privilege of using it.

blessings :hug3:

Without first knowing that there is an actual problem, and without knowing what caused it if there is, taking action to achieve one outcome or another might be a fruitless and frustrating waste of time and effort. Above and beyond that, of course, is that only the individual who 'owns' this website - or their nominated representative(s) - would have the authority to undertake such an activity.

Please think on that moderators/administrators do have lives outside of SF. Spending additional time dealing with 'problems' that may not be actual problems is unfair to expect. It's also not logical.

Well, it seems that there is a data size problem.
In my experience of using hosting services, it's usually the database that is constraining. Raw space for static sites (archives for example) is usually not a problem.
The database could be used for "living" threads by the forum software, and that would save up like 95% of the space, as well as unload the server.

Sure, I'm just throwing ideas, I'm not saying who should do what and how. I don't know the IT knowledge of admins, nor the complexity with vBulletin, nor the time anyone could allocate to do any of that.
And most of all, I'm not blaming anyone! :)

reality
 

The actuality is that we members don't know if there even is a problem.

And if there is a problem we don't know its nature hence we can't know if our personal experience has relevance.

:biggrin: Then why did you just quote 6 sentences? :laughing6:

I think you need a cuppa!

The three sentence rules regarding quotes are here to stay.please do not discuss this again


Namaste

Isn't the real importance of the rule of three sentences to avoid a posting being quoted - perhaps a very long one - without responding to specific points made in it?

Wouldn't it be appropriate to quote each point you are making a specific response to, reducing the text of that section to three sentences where it's longer?

Or have I misunderstood?

The rule was brought in because some posts were long in themselves and that was before the long quotes that came with it.
it made it very long for people to read and it took up too much space



Namaste