Suggestion on Links

[GWH]

OP

As natural gas costs plummet, sides split over nuclear energy's future

[GWH]

Reply 1

https://www.postandcourier.com/business/lawsuit-santee-cooper-misled-investors-about-failed-sc-nuclear-project/article_2dc4cd10-612a-11e9-a41c-8f4e572cf265.html

[GWH]

Retort from op

https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/potential-buyer-eyeing-abandoned-billion-sc-nuclear-project-legislator-says/article_5939affa-6db5-11e9-beb3-d7ab843a5b3d.html

[GWH]

Reply 2

Natural Gas Prices - Historical Chart

[GWH]

On and on nothing but links. No discussion. That’s why it is asked that you add to the articles to discuss, actually have some original content that is the purpose of this forum.

[WuWei]

@GWH

On and on nothing but links. No discussion.

nobody does that. Not ever. Never have. I’ll go post that Fox shooting link and let’s see what happens.

Deal?

[Snow96]

Post it in Outside the beltway

And include some commentary

[Dissident_Aggressor]

I have to agree. I’ve never seen anything like that happen, ever.

[noSpaces]

Given what passes for and the level of discussion here having just a link without the prompt for discussion might not be such a bad thing. Also, generally it seems to me the links lead to discussion versus just more often than not existing in isolation unaddressed.

If the motivation is to generate discussion then I would suggest there needs to be standards for posting addressing low content posts. If someone makes an effort post and there’s a lame quick single sentence reply, or someone posts a lengthy summary and opinion if an article and someone posts some uninformed quip without reading the post then what kind of discussion is that? Like what quality of discussion is sought?

[Samm]

@Snow96

Or you could put under it as synopsis and commentary.

Another shooting at a nother school. STEM in colorado. looks like two in custody an adult male and a juvenile male. Interesing that BOTH were students at the school. This particular school is a charter school and had kindergarten through 12 grade on campus.

That’s just plain silly. The headline and intro sentence in the link gave more than enough information to begin a discussion. About the only poster comment to add would be “here we go again” or something to that effect.

[Samm]

@Snow96

It’s a discussion board. If a person on twitter wants advertising they can pay for it (unless they are really well know aka president or politician).

Giving commentary on information in a link has always been required, and will be until the owners of the board choose to do something different.

The original rule was put in place so that a person reading the post would know what the link was about before clicking on it. In the example above, it is abundantly clear what the link is about, making it completely superfluous for the person posting it to clarify what it is about.

[conan]

I have to agree, the link usually provides the info. Now I’ll add my two cents worth concerning my OP but sometime I don’t want to influence which way the discussion may go so I’ll leave that open until other have stated their opinions first.

So where is that line?

[RTchoke]

@Samm

@Snow96

It’s a discussion board. If a person on twitter wants advertising they can pay for it (unless they are really well know aka president or politician).

Giving commentary on information in a link has always been required, and will be until the owners of the board choose to do something different.

The original rule was put in place so that a person reading the post would know what the link was about before clicking on it. In the example above, it is abundantly clear what the link is about, making it completely superfluous for the person posting it to clarify what it is about.

Exactly. At the time when the links were nothing but the text, it made sense. Now, you basically get the first part of the article which is more than enough to know whether you want to click it or not.

[Cynic]

That’s why I asked when the rules on this had last been reviewed, to be consistent with media in 2019, and more obviously the functionality of the forum. I got no answer so I assume they haven’t been in a long time.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

@Cynic

This is literally the only forum I have been on with these kinds of rules.

Me too.

[SixFoot]

Sean Hannity

And chicks dig him, too.

[Nemesis]

I find if interesting that when it comes to the “rules” the mods will never ever allow themselves to be open to any form of suggestions.

Not even “you have a good point we will ask that question for you”. And yes a number of good questions have been raised which have been dismissed by the mods.

From the replies I am seeing it appears the mods feel they are being personally attacked hence their refusal to even acknowledge that the comments posted in this thread have been in an effort to make some quality of life improvements to the forum.

[GWH]

We usually delete link “responses” with no commentary, so you shouldn’t.