PDA

View Full Version : Cut & Paste Overload?



Capn_Birdseye
June 21st, 2007, 01:06 PM
On occasions there does seem to be cut & pasting overload on some topics, almost it seems at the cost of losing valuable personal comment. I'm sure none of us want to curtail the free-flow of information on topics, but I personally find that sometimes the sheer avalanche of C&P hinders the rhythm of the topic and curtails the interesting individual thoughts and views that people contribute. Just my view, whats yours?

lofter1
June 21st, 2007, 01:12 PM
Can you point us to an example?

Ninjahedge
June 21st, 2007, 01:44 PM
Captain, I can understand if it was a debate thread. The typical "Drive-by Ctrl-V" thing is very common when someone tries to flood a discussion and take it off track.

But here, 95% of the pastes are usually relevant and full articles garnered from reputable sources. The reason many are pasted is to make sure that if the original link goes dead, the story stays.

I can understand what you are saying, I just do not see the equivalent here.

Punzie
June 21st, 2007, 01:49 PM
Could you please give us one example of cut/paste that is overload -- and another example that is not? (Sort of a compare/contrast.)

---> If one of my posts has cut/paste overload, you can use it as an example. I won't be offended.

Capn_Birdseye
July 6th, 2007, 04:15 AM
I appreciate that this issue is subjective, what is overload to me may be simply useful information to others, so I'm not trying to be prescriptive on this.

What I personally value, more than screeds of "cut & paste", are people's own views and comments, surely this is what the forum is about? I'm not saying that some "cut & paste" is unnecessary, it can be helpful, but I'd prefer on occasion to see someone precis a piece rather than simply download 10 paragraphs!

Example, taken at random: Topic: The Bush Police State - "cut & paste" from Lofter 2 July, 6 July, 13 July, 9 August, 2006, followed by BrooklynRider 7 January 2007. Solid wedges of cut & paste.

Punzie
July 6th, 2007, 05:28 AM
Example, taken at random: Topic: The Bush Police State - "cut & paste" from Lofter 2 July, 6 July, 13 July, 9 August, 2006, followed by BrooklynRider 7 January 2007. Solid wedges of cut & paste.
Re: What you're referring to starts here (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=107412&postcount=332) and goes onward to the January, 2007 post.

I can't speak for Lofter & BR, but personally, I'm glad that they did the cutting & pasting. The links often become broken quickly, but the information is always right there for future readers. When articles are selected well, as was the case with Lofter & BR, I see 'story lines' and trends.

I do a lot of cutting and pasting in my posts because:

(1) The links I choose usually break almost immediately. (The New York Times is notorious for this.)

(2) I'm interested in so many news topics that I don't have the time to do 'custom posts' for each one. If an article says exactly what I would say, cutting/pasting is quicker.:o

(3) Let's face it, the writers in publications like the The New York Times do a better job of expressing the viewpoints than I do.:o:o

(4) On a few subjects I feel the need to 'inform' the public of ongoing news. If nobody replies, I end up doing a succession of cut/paste posts. One example is Imported Food & Health Products: Low-quality & Tainted Ingredients (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13509).

ZippyTheChimp
July 6th, 2007, 07:03 AM
On occasions there does seem to be cut & pasting overload on some topics, almost it seems at the cost of losing valuable personal comment. I'm sure none of us want to curtail the free-flow of information on topics, but I personally find that sometimes the sheer avalanche of C&P hinders the rhythm of the topic and curtails the interesting individual thoughts and views that people contribute. Just my view, whats yours?What I try to avoid is posting articles that essentially state the same thing as the one before. If there is updated information, I'll post the article to keep the thread current.

If a discussion develops, I'll look for other sources that either support or refute statements made in the discussion, without overwhelming it.

However, if successive posts are just one article after another, it means no one is interested in a discussion. Nothing I can do about that.

One thing everyone should avoid is quoting entire posts (especially articles).

If you are responding to a post directly above, this ^ is all you need.

Capn_Birdseye
July 6th, 2007, 12:45 PM
I do a lot of cutting and pasting in my posts because:

(1) The links I choose usually break almost immediately. (The New York Times is notorious for this.)

(2) I'm interested in so many news topics that I don't have the time to do 'custom posts' for each one. If an article says exactly what I would say, cutting/pasting is quicker.:o

(3) Let's face it, the writers in publications like the The New York Times do a better job of expressing the viewpoints than I do.:o:o

This is my last comment on the subject. Whilst a degree of "cut & paste" is helpful, surely our own individually expressed ideas and comments are more valuable, otherwise we simply end up press regurgitators, pasting others peoples views and opinions. I, for one, am far more interested in hearing the views of people on this forum than reading a journalists take on a subject.
Thats all I've got to say on the subject. I'll shutup now!

Capn_Birdseye
July 31st, 2007, 05:41 AM
Just couldn't resist referring to "Safe Nuclear Power Deserves Justice" - now there's some serious c&p!

ZippyTheChimp
August 1st, 2007, 09:54 AM
Looking at the thread in more detail:

The thread has been running for 3 years.

Total number of articles posted: 6
Average one every 6 months.

Total responses: 11

Last response: July, 2006.


Is it c&p overload, or something else?

Maybe you can fix that, Capn.