Are you replying to me?

[Rudi]

It seems like most post replies are created by the "Quick Reply" button at the bottom of the thread. When this is done, it is sometimes hard to determine who the reply is aimed at??!!

For example in post 11374, where Jan Karel answers...But is it to me, or to someone else further up in the thread???

Unless the person replying uses the "Quote" option...Is there a way that we can change things for the reader to determine who the latest reply was voiced to?

[HansV]

You can usually assume that a reply without a quote is to the post immediately above it. This is clearly the case with Jan Karel's reply (and with mine too )

Unlike in Woody's Lounge of old, there is no indication of which post in the thread a reply refers to if there is no quote.

[Hey Jude]

@Rudi: On one forum I frequent you can respond using @nick so there is no ambiguity

Edit: It was never my intention to imply unfriendliness as has been suggested. I will certainly never use the @ here. Thanks for the heads-up.

[Rudi]

Wellllll.....I would not say "clearly"...until you explained more clearly Jan Karels answer. So after clearing up that last post, it is now clear that he was replying to me. But clearly, this is still an issue that can be potentially unclear.

[Rudi]

@Rudi: On one forum I frequent you can respond using @nick so there is no ambiguity

@Hey Jude...It takes more than a sad song to make me happy. You see...I had to @Hey Jude you else it would look as if I was possibly replying to myself!

[Skitterbug]

Hi Rudi
Since this is a friendly lounge, perhaps we all should simply start our posts with a HI and add the person's name. Then we'd definitely know to whom the post is directed. Somehow the @ sign doesn't seem quite as friendly to me..... but then I am always ready to get a grab a seat and enjoy visiting! I'm usually not in a very big hurry anymore.

[Goshute]

Since this is a friendly lounge, perhaps we all should simply start our posts with a HI and add the person's name. Then we'd definitely know to whom the post is directed. Somehow the @ sign doesn't seem quite as friendly to me...

I wholeheartedly agree, Skitter, for reasons that are intuitive and not necessarily logical. On FaceBook when some says @John or @Dad, it irritates the heck out of me. I think it has to do with customary language use where you give TO someone, but you thow a rock AT them.

I would prefer that if a poster wants to address multiple Loungers in a reply, they use TO, as in:

To Goshute: your reply makes no sense, you idiot
To Skitter: you need to back away from the coffee pot
To Hans: it bewilders us how you have time for anything else than Lounging
To Rudi: You talkin' to me? You talkin' to ME?

...etc.

[StuartR]

To: Nobody in particular

I don't see the need to address posts to any particular earlier post, unless that is a necessary part of the context.

[viking33]

To: Nobody in particular

I don't see the need to address posts to any particular earlier post, unless that is a necessary part of the context.

Stuart,
Yes but you know how some threads seem to"drift" off topic or if a particular thing is mentioned, you might try to respond directly to that comment.
I think it's a good habit to include a name.

[Rudi]

All said, I guess the bottom line is that if you post a reply and you are directing it to a particular person, it makes it clearer to address that person by name. Else a post without a name would be best seen as just a contribution to the thread in a general way. (As I am doing right now ). I want to agree with Bob that I believe it would be a good habit to develop and a bit of an etiquette to address the proper recipient by starting the reply with their name. Cheers!!!

[StuartR]

Rudi, I agree with you.

[Bigaldoc]

Yeah Rudi, it does sound like a Lounge etiquette thing that we should all try to do. It's kinda like the "unwritten" courtesy "rule" about (not) typing in all upper case, that is shouting!

[HansV]

To Hans: it bewilders us how you have time for anything else than Lounging

To Goshute: is there anything else?

[Charlotte]

To: Whomever

I don't find this kind of address particularly friendly. In most of our forums, the questions being asked and answered are somewat technical and there isn't really a need to "address" the post, although the quote feature is handlily available when needed for clarity. This isn't a chat room, in spite of the relaxed atmosphere, and I think you would find that the need to address each post would soon become very tiresome both to write and to read. It's mostly in threads here in LM and in the less serious forums where a large number of posters are exchanging messages on and off topic, so it isn't needed across the board anyhow.

[Rudi]

Rules, etiquette, opinions....there is a lot that can be said about all these. My original intent in starting this thread was due to a post that I simply did not know was addressed to me (until Hans clarified the answer.) Anyhow, I should have just stated my intent more clearly by drawing this issue to the attention of posters and hi-lite that if they do not identify to whom they are replying, (esp. if it is a post further up the thread), they might not get the attention of the intended recipient.

Personally, I like to get the attention of the person I am addressing by calling them by name and then talking, so I guess this is a habit or etiquette that I have developed over time. Maybe this is why I picked up this issue in the first place. For those who agree with me...it will help to clarify the resulting posts that you add. For those who have other opinions, please do not see this thread as a threat. I have no hard feelings at all, it was just a pointer towards clarification.

PS: It is not necessary to formally address a person by name in the beginning of the reply, but one could simply refer to the name of the recipient somewhere in the reply. This would be less formal and add clarity to whom the post was intended for (if that were needed.)

(Posted with the highest admiration for the board, the admins and the members - )

[JohnH]

Personally, I would be happy to see the widespread use of (edited) quotes.
I am want to see what aspect of the previous discussion the new poster is talking about, rather than who it is directed to. (I know I should say 'to whom it is directed')

[Jan Karel Pieterse]

Hi everyone,

Just a quick note on the @ thing: I think this may be related to that new-fangled twitter stuff, where the @ seems to have the indication you're addressing your tweet to someone in particular.

[HansV]

Hi Jan Karel,

I think you're right. That may also explain the negative reaction to using @Rudi, @Hans etc.: I think many Loungers aren't fond of the Twitter phenomenon.

(I, for one, dislike Twitter. This weekend I was referred to someone's Twitter page, because it was supposed to contain some interesting information. I had to wade through pages of vacuous remarks to find two or three relevant ones... )

[Leif]

Personally I find the use of '@' akin to using '2' and 'cu later', or using lower case exclusively - an indication of total laziness on behalf of the poster where there is no limit on the number of characters that can be written.

Who on earth dreamt of using '@' to mean 'To' when it is more commonly used to mean 'at' for email? And if you are 'twittering' to a group where there are two or more John's at different locations, how do you differentiate?

I'm in favour of making the use of it here a corporal offence.

[StuartR]

...I'm in favour of making the use of it here a corporal offence.

Possibly a lieutenant offence, or even a Major offence