General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow many DUers read the content of posters' links before responding?
I know some OPs are very long, with multiple links, but I'm starting to think most responders to posts with even a single, concise link haven't taken the time to read the link. I hope I'm wrong, but ...
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Except when the posted excerpt contains something ludicrous like Sen Sanders is trying to take away CHIP and leave children at the mercy of Republican governors. Then I don't.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Warpy
(111,141 posts)Occasionally, the substance of the article can be posted in 4 paragraphs. Once in a while, the article at the link was written by someone who was being paid by the word and those are the links I don't read. I scan other long articles.
However, life is short and most people at DU are busy and if an article contains much more than can be summarized in 4 paragraphs, I do people here the courtesy of saying so.
Renew Deal
(81,846 posts)I feel like all of the most important information should be in the OP. Occasionally it is not and I post something that is answered by the article.
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)If the header seems to have given a great deal of information, I will usually not read all of it. If its skimpy I will or move on.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I had a poster respond by stating the most basic part of an OP I posted as if it was a new idea, and another poster "agreed." And the OP took that point and went much further, in the first place. It's just strange.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Or sometimes I know the author well enough that I'll rec it before watching some hour long video, hoping that it gets more recs and exposure.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)That makes sense.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)and not so much the content. I am not a fan of long posts, so I respond mainly to the subject line, even if it really has nothing to do with the content.
I rarely read links. I normally post at work and this computer is old and slow; some of the links take a long time to load.
I like short posts that can potentially lead to a big discussion/debate.
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)enough meat in the OP
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I'm not sure why anyone would.
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)I just don't like watching videos much. I read the articles or scan them, but I have toturn off the TV and turn on the sound on the computer which I usually have off, then sit there and watch.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)I don't read the Pro-GMO ones anymore, for example. (Same links from the same few people)
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)underpants
(182,603 posts)NV Whino
(20,886 posts)I try to at least skim the long articles.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
Kaleva
(36,248 posts)There was a poster at the old Kerry forum who was outraged about a story that the Army was signing up 14 year olds and he provided a link to that report. I followed the link, read the story and saw there was another link which led to the original source that contained a disclaimer that the news report was a April Fools joke
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)is so poorly written that I misread what the poster is trying to communicate.
JHB
(37,154 posts)ryan_cats
(2,061 posts)How about those Steelers?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)I have it figured out by then.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)they are particularly comprehensive. There's often a lot of "noise" to sift through, I make a point to read them completely if I make a comment though.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)ronnie624
(5,764 posts)And often, all of the replies to the thread.
And sometimes, the comments to the article.
Demonaut
(8,914 posts)JesterCS
(1,827 posts)Won't be dupes or considered bad taste or whatnot, I like to get the feel of a thread.
Texasgal
(17,038 posts)LOL! Just kidding.. it depends. If it's a long drawn out thing I'll usually comment on the first couple of paragraphs.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Sometimes it's in the first line of the text. Sometimes it's in the last then it's like wow I really had to work hard to get to that punchline.
JI7
(89,240 posts)post some of the article or at least give some explanation of what it is.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I'm a little astounded. I guess I shouldn't be, but that might explain why discussion often goes off track. Hmm.
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)That's what I've noticed.
Few, I think, bother to visit the source link.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And many people don't find that to be a problem. It's a little strange to me, but I guess, well, I don't know what I think any more.
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)I wait until someone tells me what I should think, and then I think that until someone tells me to think something else.
bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)Chapter 21-Omaha
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016139460
Atman
(31,464 posts)Oh, wait...what was this thread about?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)She is far more skilled than I knew.
Atman
(31,464 posts)He's got an iPad.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)I stopped reading after the title.
TacoD
(581 posts)Atman
(31,464 posts)Just sayin'.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)That's why I've never formed a relationship with many of our verbose and beloved DUers.
I did, however, just respond to your Eagles post.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)of their response by looking at the screen name of the person posting the OP.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)If I elect to respond at all, and there's not enough content in the post itself, I'll usually read the links. Sometimes, the link is just support for a point the author is making in the post, so whether or not I click through on them is situation.
Some post only a link (besides the headline)...and I never click through to those...ever.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)When you click on the link, you find that everything you needed to know before responding was already available in the post. So when I see four paragraphs from a link copied in the post, I don't bother to read the link before responding.
On the other hand, some post titles contain only a sort of secretive arcane reference to a link. If the post title catches my eye I click on the link to see if there really is anything there.
IMO, the title and body of the post itself is the main factor in (a) whether or not I respond at all, and (b) whether or not I read the link before responding.
Of course there have been some posters, like ProSense, who posted a gazillion links in each post. Usually I responded to those with a smartass comment about all the effing links.