# Do you read all the posts on a thread?



## Sigdel (Oct 22, 2005)

When you are wanting to post on a really long thread (100+ posts) do you read all the posts? I have noticed that a lot of statements get repeated. I am just curious...


----------



## diaglo (Oct 22, 2005)

i read the thread title. and maybe the original thread if it is concise.

otherwise... it depends.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 22, 2005)

No, I have to admit I don't.  I skim and read what catches my eye.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 22, 2005)

This poll needs more choices, like "sometimes".


----------



## Darkness (Oct 22, 2005)

Yes, for the most part. I often merely skim really long _posts_ unless they're particularly interesting, however.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 22, 2005)

Darkness said:
			
		

> Yes, for the most part. I often merely skim really long _posts_ unless they're particularly interesting, however.




Same here.


----------



## IronWolf (Oct 22, 2005)

I am in the skimming group, but I think I read the majority of the posts in a thread.  I try not to repeat the exact things that others have said, but sometimes what I have to say is only a little bit different.  I am on the boards often enough that it isn't very often a thread gets to 100 posts without me having read it much earlier than that.


----------



## Eternalknight (Oct 23, 2005)

A skimmer myself.


----------



## LogicsFate (Oct 23, 2005)

Usually read the last page and if that interestes me enough I start working backwards to see what their talking about(Is this normal? Am I just weird?)


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Oct 23, 2005)

No vote - it depends.

If I first come to a thread after it has it three more pages and many posts are saying the same thing, I may skip to the last page or two.


----------



## Eosin the Red (Oct 23, 2005)

I skip over folks whose record indicates that I ain't real interested. I start skipping over the second or third post from any one person. I skip posts that scroll off my screen. Otherwise, I read them all but that ends up being about 40% of the total.

***Disclaimer --- any of the above rules might be violated at whim or if the poster is a skilled orator.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Oct 23, 2005)

Heaven help me, I've even read all the posts on the Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack? thread.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Oct 23, 2005)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Heaven help me, I've even read all the posts on the Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack? thread.




Cheiromancer, you lose 4d10 sanity.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Oct 23, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Cheiromancer, you lose 4d10 sanity.




Good thing that, as a cleric, I have a high wisdom.


----------



## Eloi (Oct 23, 2005)

I read all the posts on the thread. This way, I know who I agree with, who can present themselves effectively, and who is likely to drag down the discussion into the nethermost strata of arcane errata, whose effects affect the effects of the infected's affections, rendering the discussion ineffectual (and overly long). An overseer of underenlightenment, a lord of the bored, a patron of minutiae - and, perhaps most tellingly, anyone who begins a sentence with "lol" - these people frequently bring little substantive to the table.

Thankfully, there are only a few such; we have many excellent storytellers here, and the well-spoken outnumber those who are not spending quite as much time at the grindstone sharpening their tools of discourse as we might wish. 

It's a good board, and I hope Morrus can keep it alive. Here's to Morrus and finding more revenue streams to support this ongoing effort. *clink*

_I made my save, and take no Sanity loss, thanks to my Sanity of the Proofreader feat._


----------



## Arnwyn (Oct 25, 2005)

Yes, I do, if I plan to post in that thread.


----------



## genshou (Oct 31, 2005)

I have no life, so yes.

But I still repeat what others already said


----------



## Jdvn1 (Oct 31, 2005)

the Jester said:
			
		

> This poll needs more choices, like "sometimes".



 Seconded.

(like, now, I didn't have to read past this post.  )


----------



## jonesy (Nov 1, 2005)

If I'm going to post on the thread? Of course I do. Even if it has 50+ pages.


----------



## fett527 (Nov 1, 2005)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Yes, I do, if I plan to post in that thread.




Ditto.  If I decide I am going to post in a thread I will read every post.  I believe it is polite to make sure I understand where others are coming from and that I do not repeat something that has already been said.  (Unless of course one is asking for multiple opinions, like this poll)


----------



## Gez (Nov 1, 2005)

A bit of all.

Sometimes I read all.

More often, I skip long posts and read the others.

But usually, I don't open long threads at all, unless I've followed them since the beginning.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 2, 2005)

Sigdel said:
			
		

> When you are wanting to post on a really long thread (100+ posts) do you read all the posts? I have noticed that a lot of statements get repeated. I am just curious...




To be honest, no...

I try to read all the thread before posting, but sometimes I just cannot resist expressing myself   Then what happens after posting usually is that I read a couple of posts more and find that my post was redundant.

However, most of the threads I post in are short ones. I cannot suffer long discussions in the rules forum (if the discussion is more than a couple of pages long, it's already degenerated into a pointless rules-lawyer personal war), while long threads in the general forums usually mean I have a lot to read but not much to add.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 2, 2005)

Oh and by the way, when the thread is a poll or a question, I often prefer to answer before hearing other's opinion, so that my answer is more spontaneous and uninfluenced, althought this may mean that I may be convinced to change my mind later...

For example, I didn't read other's posts in this very thread


----------



## nothing to see here (Nov 2, 2005)

I believe, absolutely, that the price of gamebooks is getting, too high.

So I voted yes.


----------

