Apologies for double posting

[aside]

Should we continue the practice of apologizing for double posts?  Why or why not?

[mamselle]

I just had that thought from seeing it on a post on the CHE site.

It seemed to embody a kind of simple courtesy in acknowledging an annoyance as unintentional, and it kept the thread from getting tangled up in a "hey, did you know you said that twice?"-go-round, with the miscreant posting an apology three posts later and tying up the thread yet again.

I liked seeing it as a sign of how careful we really do try to be with each other, (OK, most of the time!), and I think that level of courtesy sends a message to new posters as well.

M.

[aside]

Yes, it makes sense if one actually posts the same thing twice that one would apologize.  I also refer to the practice of saying "Apologies for double posting" when one posts non-identical posts one after the other with no intervening response.

[namazu]

In my book, double-posting when there is a compelling reason to do so (e.g., addressing disparate comments from multiple posters in digestible chunks, or remembering something relevant after the edit window has passed) is not a sin, nor a crime, nor even a minor party foul.  Thus, it warrants no apology. 

I feel the same way about very long posts.  (Of course, authors should also be aware that such posts require more effort to digest than some readers are willing or able to invest, and they should consider whether their rhetorical goals are well-served by this strategy.) 

Blatant thread hijacking is far more discourteous, as it is a greater hindrance to coherent, thoughtful discussion. There's room for everyone's pet topic -- but it's not often on someone else's thread on a different subject.  Thread hijacking should generally be avoided, and when an apology is called for, it should be offered in as unobtrusive a way as possible. 

While we're complaining about perceived BBS transgressions, I'd also like to register my extremely mild annoyance with posts announcing that a spammer has been reported (which I've seen at CHE and elsewhere).  Their primary function seems to be to call attention to the person reporting the spam. Because reporting takes so little time, because reports about a given post are generally collated for the moderators,* and because most of us are aware enough not to be fooled by forum spam, there's really no need to alert others to the fact that a post was spam and has been reported.  All such posts do is leave yet another bit of off-topic detritus in a (sometimes previously-dormant, but now needlessly resurrected) thread.  Report the spam, but don't bother reporting that you've reported!

*At least, this is true on forums I've moderated; I do not know for sure if it is true on this platform and would welcome correction if I am wrong.

[mamselle]

I only comment on reported spam when others have picked up on it and not realized it was a spammer--or did, and also commented.

Just to keep the number of reports down for the mods to have to go through, was my reasoning.

Sorry if it's obtrusive!

M.

[namazu]

Just to keep the number of reports down for the mods to have to go through, was my reasoning.

It was thoughtful of you!