how do you read a DU thread ?

[drray23]

Im curious as how you guys read a DU thread before contributing to it. Personally, I read or at least skim through all the existing posts in the thread before adding to it.

I've seen threads spinning out of control where it seems some posters completely ignore something upthread and post an angry response based on incomplete information or a misunderstanding which had been cleared up earlier in the thread.

[walkingman]

1. Good point - I read until one gets my attention and

then respond. I do look down a little but admittedly not that much.

[Phoenix61]

2. I read all the posts first. nt

[Cheezoholic]

13. I do too

If it's miles long I have nothing to add. I try to only reply if I feel I have something to add. But sometimes Im just an angry old fuck

[in2herbs]

3. +1

[Takket]

4. I didn't read the OP

But yes. I have read DU threads.



Seriously. Yes I have seen many threads where someone has bad info they post that gets corrected. But people keep on posting about the bad info.

Happened recently with a story posted about a woman that got a nasty letter because she had rainbow items in her yard. Turned out that story was not only from 2015 but also a scam the person used to raise sympathy money. This was pointed out in many replies but people went right on posting about how horrible he right wing neighbor was for writing the nasty letter.

[Sympthsical]

5. Most people in general tend to read headlines and about one paragraph

If I actually responded to every instance of, "That is not what that article said. Your impression is untrue," I would have to quit my day job.

And this is all of social media - not just here. I read Reddit probably most frequently, and you can often get dozens of comments deep until you find someone responding who actually read the entire linked article.

That's why so many online spaces and "journalists" who use click bait titles are corroding our national intelligence, IMO. Write a super outrageous headline designed to prick at people's sensitive spots or political sensibilities, and watch the clicks, likes, and retweets fly.

Buried in paragraph 8? The actual facts and point. Sometimes it completely contradicts what the headline implies.

Doesn't matter. Got clicks.

[hlthe2b]

7. Increasingly common... I get it when the thread is "miles long," but it is frustrating--

whether one is the OP or a contributor, to see the same (already answered) question posted time and time again in the thread. Human nature, short attention spans, and multi-tasking to blame I guess, but it can be frustrating. Especially if it causes someone to "go off" based on an already clarified misperception.

But equally frustrating to me, at least, is the habit of some DUers of posting throughout the thread, only to come back an hour or two later and self-delete every single post (for whatever reason) thereby rendering multiple subthreads very difficult to comprehend.

Oh, well...

[gulliver]

8. I read the posts first, and add a +1 (adding more than that I can't do, being one person)

If the other posts raise an issue, I respond on their post.

[sl8]

9. Skim all replies, read some.

Be on the lookout for replies with titles containing: "Fact check", "Snopes", "debunked", etc..

[dalton99a]

10. With a salt shaker

[BlackSkimmer]

14. Best answer yet!

[BlueGreenLady]

16. +1 and a lime!

[Beastly Boy]

11. First, I read the OP.

Then, I read down the thrread until I come across a post I want to respond to.

If that post has nothing to do with the OP, I go up the thread until I find a post that triggered the one I want to respond to. If I don't find a post like that, I respond directly to the content of the post that I chose to respond to. If there is a connection to a previous post, I respond in the context of that post and any conversation between it and the post of my interest.

Sure, sometimes my response duplicates what had already been posted. But I consider it a forgivable sin. And sometimes I miss or misinterpret the context which is important in informing my response. In this case, I count on other DUers to bring my attention to it. They rarely fail to do so.

[wyn borkins]

12. Most-Quickly

More often than not, I read all of the listed postings before replying to any (of them). Additionally, I have noticed that once a posting has moved 'down-the-page' and then 'past-the-fold, not many folke will respond (at all). Therefore, I tend to post 'early' (in the process) OR not at all.

Thank you drray23 for this most-curious query.

[BlueGreenLady]

17. +1

post 'early' (in the process) OR not at all.

[Totally Tunsie]

15. Interesting question. You're right - there are many different styes of response.

As for me, I try to read through all the posts first to be sure my thought or point hasn't already been stated by someone else. If I find one very close, I'll perhaps add to that first before making any additional post. Occasionally, especially in a very long thread, I'll find something that sparks me to respond before reading on, but I prefer otherwise.

If there are too many responses similar to my thoughts, I usually don't feel the need to load more on.

Often, I'll type out a reply, (always) re-read before hitting "Post", and end up deleting instead. The mere action of typing it out sometimes relieves the "need" to post. Sometimes I just need to get out a silly thought, and then just think otherwise and delete.

[dwayneb]

18. With great difficulty

The way this forum is laid out, it's difficult to follow the threads. It needs some modernization to make it more approachable.

So I usually resort to skimming, no doubt a lot of content is repeated or superfluous, just because it's not easy to navigate.

[sl8]

19. Are you thinking of the ability to expand and collapse subthreads, by level? nt

[TheBlackAdder]

20. It depends on how busy I am at the time and how emotionally affected I am in the article.

.

For example, It's Saturday and I'm just hanging out so I read everything.

If I'm busy I'll read the OP or most of it, and skim the titles of the thread posts. I'll reply to a close hit.

If I'm busy and a topic pisses me off, I'll fire off something more in haste, sort of a rage post.

But, 80% of the time, I'll post something and then once I hit enter I'll see 10 corrections I needed to make.

=======

Short on time beings me back to a college experiment where people were sent from one class to a meeting hall.
Students could not be late as the doors would lock. Staged along the way was someone who was injured.

In one test, there was a 30 minute gap, and around 70% of test subjects stopped to assist the injured.
The second test left one minute of free time and less than 10% of the students stopped to help.

.

[dameatball]

21. Sometimes I read them, sometimes I don't. Variety is the spice of life.

I was going to copy someone else's post and see if anyone noticed, but got lazy.

[lamp_shade]

22. If I find an OP interesting and I wish to comment, I read every other comment first.

[Midwestern Democrat]

23. I read the OP and skim the reply headings - will read the reply if the heading looks interesting or

is posted by a user whose posts I respect; conversely, there's certain posters whose posts I'll never read - those who are so extremely unpleasantly biased that reading their posts is a waste of time and there's no point engaging in a conversation with them.

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

24. If it's nothing but a clickbait to Twitter I never read any of it, deceptive headlines piss me off

Ok, I know people think they're clever, but you're not, state your business in a clear message. I don't have time to read one word headlines that say nothing either.

Yelling at clouds is not a spectator sport. I don't care what rant you are blurting out that is only in your head. I can't read minds and am not seeing what u see.