Suggestion: Limit length of posts

[Shelly Gould Burgess]

Here's a general suggestion, and perhaps people can reply with their opinions so that Jim O'Bryan can decide whether this is a worthy idea.

I propose that Jim set a reasonable limit to how long each individual post can be. My rationale is this: I often spot topics which I find interesting and would like to join in on, but when I see how much I have to read in order to contribute an informed post of my own, I'm put off. I just don't have time to read that much. If there were a length limit on each post, then at least people who want to write a lot will have to break their posts down into smaller pieces that might each have just one thesis, making them easier to read.

I fear that if we continue to have such long posts, this forum will become exclusive to the few people who have enough time to sit on the Internet and read and read and read.

What do others think?

(For reference, there are 166 words in this post, not counting this aside.)

[Grace O'Malley]

IMO, I would prefer NOT to have to limit my posts.

I totally sympathize with you on the time constraint problem, but I'd prefer to let people work out a solution on their own rather than have the forum restrict posts in any way.

For example, I recognize that some posters are more wordy than others, so what I do is scan through the longer posts and slow down when they get interesting, you know?

There might be just one gem in a long post, but I'd sure hate to miss it because the writer was restricted.

[Lynn Farris]

I agree with you Grace, but like you I often skim the long posts.

I do like it when they link to an article that I can read if I want to and just point out the main point in the post. The URL works a little different here, but with some playing you can get used to it.

[Kenneth Warren]

Shelly's inquiry raises practical questions about the import of personality type, communication bias and learning styles to an experiment such as this, which aims to amplify civic intelligence and community good will.

Lengthy posts can amplify civic irritation.

What are the best rules and practices?

I prefer Moby Dick to the Old Man and the Sea.

That could be attributed to the following conditions: male, enneagram Number 5.

In my hunger for knowlege, I disposed toward posts that read 'supersize me.'

The opportunity to experiment with an "express lane" for certain content streams might serve an expressive purpose for personalities put off by the size of the lines and reluctant to gamble precious time on a floodtide of questionable data.

Such an "express lane" experiment seems worth doing.

In my own biased condition, I believe that a total restriction on the size of all posts is overkill. But I am willing to play by the rules of engagement.

Kenneth Warren

[Stan Austin]

I think that the situation as it exists now is alright. With the oldest/newest display feature we have a degree of flexibility that doesn't exist on other similar forums. And we have the trusty scroll wheel on the mouse.

Sometimes a poster just has a lot to say and if it's well written it well be read.

Stan Austin

[Jim O'Bryan]

Here's a general suggestion, and perhaps people can reply with their opinions so that Jim O'Bryan can decide whether this is a worthy idea.

I propose that Jim set a reasonable limit to how long each individual post can be.

Shelly

As usual you have hit on a very interesting topic. Let me try to weigh in on this with a couple comments.

1) I am just the lucky guy that gets to pay the bills. I have tried to make this the board of the residents of Lakewood. So throwing it out for discussion is perfect, and I appreciate you starting the conversation. Following the online conversation, the advisory board would sit down and discuss it with DL Meckes aka Web Master and look at options.

2) When we started this, there was talked about having areas that would issue white papers or wraps on various topics so that a person could quickly look at the white paper and understand where the thread is headed and what has been discussed.

Now here is the problem, with the paper becoming the hottest thing in town, and our advertisers looking for better distribution, the "white paper" area is on hold until we can find a person to write them and while we continue on to our goal of getting the paper to EVERY house in Lakewood.

As winter closes in on us, Lakewood Observer has got to develop the plan that guarantees delivery. This will secure LO's place on Lakewood coffee tables and reading rooms.

Thanks again for kicking off the discussion. I hope these two things shed some light on what, why and when.


Jim O'Bryan

[Stephen Calhoun]

First of all, I am a supersize poster. Also, I am one of only a few persons who bring outside materials in their length and to various spots in the forum. This is entirely consistent with a barely mediated natural tendency having to do with being an ENFP (Myers-Briggs) an audio/verbal and abstract conceptualizer (learning style,) and, someone who is also aware of how inferior functions and other inferiorities work their way into 'posting style'.

So, posting style is also a symptom.

***
Shelly,

I often spot topics which I find interesting and would like to join in on, but when I see how much I have to read in order to contribute an informed post of my own, I'm put off. I just don't have time to read that much.

proposes a solution

If there were a length limit on each post, then at least people who want to write a lot will have to break their posts down into smaller pieces that might each have just one thesis, making them easier to read.

Grace does too, but it is a matter of approach, not structure,

I recognize that some posters are more wordy than others, so what I do is scan through the longer posts and slow down when they get interesting, you know?

Ken offers some context,

Lengthy posts can amplify civic irritation.

(Comment- certain matches of style are consonant, other matches are disonant, others split the difference. I'm curious about how this grows into civic irritation. I'm sure it does.)

Ken offers an experiment,

The opportunity to experiment with an "express lane" for certain content streams might serve an expressive purpose for personalities put off by the size of the lines and reluctant to gamble precious time on a floodtide of questionable data.

Stan offers an important point.

Sometimes a poster just has a lot to say and if it's well written it well be read.

Jim refers to meta-structure.

When we started this, there was talked about having areas that would issue white papers or wraps on various topics so that a person could quickly look at the white paper and understand where the thread is headed and what has been discussed.

***

If I were to simply define the problem, it would be to note this:

A. In any array of interactive, asynchronous, dialogic, written communication, the facts of successful communication are found in the evidence of thoughtful response. -That something is read is known because it has generated a response.

B. Likewise, the facts of unsuccessful communication are largely hidden. The appearance is: that there is little unsuccessful communication.

C. Hypothesis. Is most communication is unsuccessful.

***

This is a very complicated problem because any constructive view of communication is, by definition, complicated. I'll say a bit more, (in an ensuing post,) and conclude this post with the suggestion that a structural solution, a formulation of a norm, is unlikely to solve this problem because successful communication is not primarily funded by structural regulation.

[Stephen Calhoun]

The frame of reference of communication is the successful delivery of a message. It is also the unsuccessful delivery.

The analysis of the prospects for both would take into account the trade-offs made in posing possible structures which in their different ways preclude successful delivery of messages. The point is: this trade-off exists no matter whether the norms provide for tight constraints, or, little constraint at all.

But, there are other factors that are important, and, those other factors may be more important.

For example, if one wants their message to be widely read, a non-structural factor has to do with the poster's understanding of what non-structural factors provoke a 'wide reading'. One factor is: be controversial; roil the waters. Another factor is: ask a question. Another factor is: highlight someone else by name.

So, if a poster intentionally wishes to be read a lot, they would command intentional factors with, perhaps, considerable sophistication. There is no doubt structural factors are often integral. Be controversial and concise, for example.

Let's identify another kind of intention. In this example, the poster doesn't care about being widely read. In the sense of 'good' communication, this poster's contribution might be: insipid, self-referential/self-centered, obscure, difficult, lengthy, (it can be these things and short too,) private, specialized, etc.

There's no doubt specific norms can defeat the intention to communicate in this way. In light of this, the trade-off given the norming of length, is to disallow the lengthy versions of this 'bad' communication, as well as the lengthy versions of 'good' communication.

But, in both latter exclusions, the structural answer, in effect, supposes that intention to communicate is not as important as the calculation of time-and-space is.

And this is where at least a few babies get tossed with the bathwater. The assumptions behind making one trade-off set versus another set are not difficult to examine. Where their pressure is felt is in the presumptive exclusion of certain kinds of message loops. One is: 'complex messages delivered to recipients who like complex messages'. Another is: 'obscure messages delivered to self-selecting recipients who like the obscure'. (We shouldn't assume that difficulty, for example, cannot provide for good communication. It can, but it isn't 'good' communication in the sense that it follows from the intention to be 'widely read'.

[Stephen Calhoun]

(I 'nicely' split up my posts here but not with the sense that 'you' will read them!)

Posts not intended to be widely read filter out non-readers of the message. If we decide to structure norms which mitigate this conscious or unconscious intention, its constructive aim, better communication, finds the evidence of success clarified. (To what concrete evidence?) It would be a part of proving the hypothesis, "shorter is better".

But, that experiment would filter out intention too, so it offers a kind of weird posit: 'to eliminate communication has something to do with promoting communication'. (This is a paradox to some extent because this posit isn't untrue. We know that eliminating discourtesy does promote communication. In fact, lengthy arcane self-referential (etc.) posts where the poster intentionally wishes not to communicate except to a select few might be seen by the non-reader as being discourteous!)

***

Finally. As an advisor to the Lakewood Observer, I would remind if asked that doing the experiment of barely constrained inclusion will, (as I have mentioned previously,) have unintended consequences.

Inclusion is not: to be all things to all people; it is to include all things and all people.

Exclusion, by definition mitigates the effects of inclusion. There isn't the possibility of a communication structure that provides 'all things to all people'.

That both inclusion and exclusion promote 'anxiety' goes with the territory. That inclusion is the harder experiment to do should be obvious.

[Stephen Calhoun]

Couple of side points.

One, if you scroll through the list of persons registered here, it becomes very clear very quickly who posts the most (hi!), who posts less, and who posts not at all, or not yet.

We can't make certain assumptions about the 'lurkers' without first doing the research.

Two, there is a quantitative element. This board with around 200 registered users is different than what it would be with 500, 1,000, 2,000 registered users. You don't have to be from Lakewood to be here (hi!), and, there is enough of wide-ranging interest on the forums to promote the future prospect that the Observation Deck could go through several evolutions of magnitude, quality, and, group make-up.

[Stephen Calhoun]

More points to the side.

Three, a post which generates a response of any kind is a successful post (at generating a response) even if the respondee (?) is the only person interested in message, thread.

Four, accurate inferences about intentions are elusive.

Five, both garden-variety projection and projective identification are amplified in a medium where physical cues (etc.) are absent. (In the early days of text communication in group mediums this was a hypothesis. It's been proven to be true.)

Six, group psycho-dynamics are no less evident in this medium.

[Shelly Gould Burgess]

It's not really a personality issue or an impatience issue for me. I actually like intellectual discourse and read as much as I can. It's simply that I had to get up three times while reading Stephen's posts to care for my nine-month-old baby. I want to read what people have to say, but long posts make it difficult for me to participate in an informed way. I'm simply wondering if others have the same problem, and, if so, I'm wondering if there are there things we can do to make this forum accessible to everyone.

[Stan Austin]

Shelly--- I don't have the same problem as you do since I don't have a nine month old baby.
However, I do have to get up periodically to get a beer in order to get through Steve's posts.
Instead of asking him to shorten them I'll just move a mini fridge into the room here!
Stan

[Jeff Endress]

Dr. Calhoun has opined as follows:

both garden-variety projection and projective identification are amplified in a medium where physical cues (etc.) are absent

Perhaps Dr. Calhoun could explain what the heck that means.

Mr. Endress

[Jim O'Bryan]

This is entirely consistent with a barely mediated natural tendency having to do with being an ENFP (Myers-Briggs) an audio/verbal and abstract conceptualizer (learning style,) and, someone who is also aware of how inferior functions and other inferiorities work their way into 'posting style'.

So, posting style is also a symptom.

***

Shelly

I think Steve's typo might have sent you the wrong message.

I believe "barely mediated natural tendency"

Was meant to be "barely medicated natural tendency."


With that it all make much more sense, right Dr. Puck?


Jim O'Bryan