Should you read an entire thread before responding?

[The F-H.C.A.G.]

I read this entire thread before posting (but not before voting-can you guess which way I voted? )

Just to prove I've read it (and to annoy the heck out of my husband)...

I wonder why this poll was created

Like I said in the other thread that I just revived, I do think it's a good idea to read an entire thread before chiming in.

1. You may say something that someone has already said.
2. It's respectful to not only the thread starter but to everyone that has contributed to the thread.
3. Threads has a huge tendency to dramatically change as time goes on, and the thread may have started one topic, but have grown into an entirely different genre. If you only read the first post, your comment may have nothing to do with what the thread is about anymore.

My rule of thumb is to read the entire thread. If there are >100 posts in a thread I will at least read the first page and the last page to try and figure out if I am interested in the content of the thread and how things have progressed. Then I will go back and read the entire thing before chiming in.

Just my two cents.

Yep, I agree entirely. Very good points you've made here Ayin.

...snip...

The only exception to this is a greetings thread I think.

...snip...

We all find out later how this works out don't we?

...snip...

Often, when I am reading a thread, there is a comment I want to make, only to not post it because someone has said the same thing later in the thread.

...snip...

Just because someone has said the same thing doesn't mean that you can't contribute the same opinion, just phrased differently!

This is what I use as a guideline:

If a thread asks for OPINIONS, I'll read the entire thing to see if someone else has replied similarily to how I feel. If so, then I usually will forgo posting to avoid repetition.

If a thread asks for advice AND I have the knowledge AND no one else has posted a suitable answer, I'll reply.

If I think a thread may benefit from an injection of my "off-kilter" sense of humour, then I'll reply. I enjoy nothing better than bringing smiles into our forum.

I try to remember that reading requires less brain power than forming thoughts and then writing them out. If I'm going to strain my mental capacities, the result should be of value.

I'm going for a nap now.

Most of the time, I do exactly what Big Mikey does, but today I am making a point about how I read this thread and therefore am quoting 75% of the posters and, in this way injecting my "off-kilter" sense of humor.

That's a good rule. It's always nice to listen to what someone is saying rather than blocking them out by thinking of your response and missing half of their comment.

It's also nice to feel like someone has really been listening rather than thinking of what they want to say and missing the point.

Man, do I sound married.........

That's because you are married, I hope?!

Why on earth would anyone read something all the way through before responding? That is not the way humans react in this day in age. but then, I have an excuse. I'm unmedicated ADHD.

It's called Ritalin. I hear it works. Talk to your health care provider.

I voted "no," though I almost always DO.

If someone asks for opinions, I'll give mine without reading the dozens that precede it.

Let's face it - by skipping posts, we're not missing great literature in most cases.

Hey, what about MY great literature?

Before I start reading a post I always check the start date and then proceed through the entire thread. I will admit that I do go through it rather quickly, and have to sometimes go back to pick up things I have missed. When I do screw up its generally when I think I'm at the end of a thread and there are more pages that I didn't see. What I really hate doing is posting in the middle of someone posting pictures.

Yeah, we picture posting folks hate that.

hey, 4 pages of stuff, am I going to read it all, don't need to to make my point

You're missing a lot-there's some pretty good stuff in those 4 pages most of the time.

I voted for reading the whole thread. If I want to respond to an early message and haven't finished reading the thread yet, I usually earmark stuff as I go along and use the quote-plus button, which snags the messages I'm reacting to and assembles them into the editing box when I hit the "post reply" button.

I also have a habit of using the "Preview Post" button to not only see how my composition looks, but to see if someone beat me to the punch.

Regards,
Rex.

I always knew I liked you Rex! Must be why Jamie likes you too (I hope! )

I always try to read the whole thread--usually somebody has already contributed what I was about to say, and said it better, accounting for my low ranking for having been around as long as I have; I try to add someting substantive instead of a "me too" so the discussion stays fertile and concise.

I don't mind old threads being resurrected when someone has new information to offer--they may not have been around at the original discussion, and it shows their interest that they root around for all our previous wisdom. In fact, would that more people did such research before bring ing up a question that has been thoroughly beaten to a pulp.

Me too!

HAT!

Pith helmet?

Nope, I didn't read this one either. Sometimes it is best just to express your initial reaction to a topic or post, rather than have it be tainted by reading everyone elses posts.

Yeah, whatever.

Bingo!

Seriously...
I think people should feel free to make the choice that fits them best.
Kilt forums should fit like a kilt, not pants.

No one should feel silly over a forum post.

You know what, if you don't read what's already been posted, you DO run the risk of looking silly. But, just MHO.

And, by the way, I haven't read any of the posts that may have happened while I was posting this. My apologies.

Be well,