To quote or not to quote ... that is the question

Everything you need to know about the Origami Forum.

How should quoting be handled

Please quote as little as necessary, because it annoys me to read all the text over and over again.
15
20%
Quoting doesn't bother me, because I don't really need to read the quoted text.
12
16%
Quoting is ok, as long as people use the internal quoting functions to make clear, which of the text is a quote, and which not.
31
42%
I never thought about it.
6
8%
I don't have an opinion about that.
5
7%
Quote as much as you want. The more the better.
5
7%
 
Total votes: 74

TheRealChris
Moderator
Posts: 1874
Joined: May 17th, 2003, 1:01 pm
Location: Germany

To quote or not to quote ... that is the question

Post by TheRealChris »

So tell me your opinion about quoting in this forum. Should it be kept as minimal as possible or doesn't quoting bother you at all?
User avatar
thut
Super Member
Posts: 153
Joined: October 3rd, 2005, 2:10 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Post by thut »

I think that quoting is useful if the quoter is quoting something waaay back 2 or more pages in the topic, but not if text being quoted is in the previous 2-3 posts in the topic.
Friet
Senior Member
Posts: 264
Joined: April 1st, 2005, 5:29 pm
Location: Zwolle, The Netherlands

Post by Friet »

Actually I'm used to quoting people when I'm not posting right behind them. I guess it isn't really necessary when the quoted post is only a few posts above you. But I don't actually read the quotes, just a quick glance to see which post someone is replying to.
User avatar
Daydreamer
Moderator
Posts: 1423
Joined: October 28th, 2005, 2:53 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria
Contact:

Post by Daydreamer »

I think it's really unnecessary to quote a post that is just before yours, if you are quoting the whole text.
It's ok if you want to say something about a specific part of that post to quote just that part, but quoting all of the text when you can read the same text just by scrolling a bit upwards is just stupid.
So long and keep folding ^_^
Gerwin
User avatar
origami_8
Administrator
Posts: 4338
Joined: November 8th, 2004, 12:02 am
Location: Austria
Contact:

Post by origami_8 »

I´m absolutely with thut and Daydreamer.
Last edited by origami_8 on October 27th, 2007, 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Friet
Senior Member
Posts: 264
Joined: April 1st, 2005, 5:29 pm
Location: Zwolle, The Netherlands

Post by Friet »

I suppose I could just start my post with the name of the person who I'm talking to. One less over-quoting person to worry about :)
TheRealChris
Moderator
Posts: 1874
Joined: May 17th, 2003, 1:01 pm
Location: Germany

Post by TheRealChris »

I ABSOLUTELY DON'T CARE about quotes. in my opinion everyone can quote as much as he wish. because I can easily skip the quotes if I wish, as long as they are marked as a quote. so regarding to my point of view, you are very save here... quote as much or less as you want... you have my blessing :)
User avatar
malachi
Senior Member
Posts: 354
Joined: December 18th, 2004, 9:19 pm
Location: Tennessee
Contact:

Post by malachi »

While I agree that quoting isn't strictly necessary if you are responding to the last post, it can get a little confusing if someone else slips a post inbetween your post and the post of the person you were actually responding to.
User avatar
Alexandre
Senior Member
Posts: 341
Joined: December 14th, 2005, 5:42 pm
Location: London, UK

Post by Alexandre »

malachi, if you need a very long time to write a post, write your answer in another tab (if you use a decent browser) , and refresh the page of the topic before submit your answer.
User avatar
malachi
Senior Member
Posts: 354
Joined: December 18th, 2004, 9:19 pm
Location: Tennessee
Contact:

Post by malachi »

and then go back and add quotes if someone has posted while I was writing my post? I'd much rather just quote. It also makes the post less context dependent.
User avatar
Ondrej.Cibulka
Buddha
Posts: 1055
Joined: January 9th, 2006, 4:18 pm
Location: Czech republic
Contact:

Post by Ondrej.Cibulka »

It is really neccesary to quote that part on which I replay, in my opinion. But without any redundant informations! Never use whole paragraph, but only sentence or several words. In this way, it will be most clear to read replays.
Ondrej Cibulka Origami, www.origamido.cz
User avatar
origami_8
Administrator
Posts: 4338
Joined: November 8th, 2004, 12:02 am
Location: Austria
Contact:

Post by origami_8 »

There's a difference to post a little part of a message to make clear what you are talking about and quoting the full text of a previous message.
To say it clear: I also quote people, but I try not to overquote them.
I will try to explain it with some examples:
In the following post (taken from the topic "Glue, Wetfolding, Tissue Foil and Purism") quoting was used very well for pointing out, to what part of the previous post the writer was referring to, this is how quoting should be used:
malachi wrote:
Marx wrote:I first need to apologize. I want you to know that I wasn't attempting to attack you, and it looks like it came off that way.
That's a problem, then, because you are basically attacking my beliefs. Unit origami is one of my preferred modes.
Marx wrote:I follow the origami reference to just paper folding. But if we consider this to be true, then every unintentional fold in a piece of paper is a work or origami.
This is a debate that some parts of the art world have already been through, in particular modern art. I would argue that any folded paper could be considered a work of origami.
Marx wrote:Truly, the word origami does not indicate anything about the ability to use glue or cuts, which doesn't necessarily prohibit the use, but it does not permit the use. I can tell you that when the word was created, I doubt that there were very efficient cutting or gluing methods, so there would be no possibility of knowing about it. They didn't have glue or scissors, so how would they have known to indicate not to use it? It's like making a car and saying in the manual "Don't use rougel gas" in it. We don't even know what rougel gas is. But maybe it's part of the future? My point is is that there would be no way for them to indicate the rules or purism if all the possible deviations from that standard cannot be known.
Here is where I'm going to get a little pedantic. While glue may be a more complex issue in this regard, cutting is not. Humans have had cutting tools for a very, very long time. In fact, if it were not for the existence of effective cutting tools, how would the first origami artists have managed to start with a square in the first place?

I think you could even argue the opposite of your point, that origami should expand to include new developments and technologies. For example, we fold with some papers that is radically different from the first origami models ever made, but I don't see you rushing to exclude models made with modern papers from "pure" origami.

I agree that they may not have had scissors, but there are other ways to cut paper, including knives which have been around quite a while. Also, tearing could have been, and I would guess was, used to create a "cutting" effect for some models.

The basic point I am arguing is that the meaning of origami should be as inclusive as reasonably possible. Narrowing the scope for "purity" does not provide enough benifit, in my opinion, to warrant the restrictions.
In the following post we can see how it shouldn't be. The poster is quoting nearly the full text of the previous post to write less than he is actually quoting (this example was taken from the same topic as the above example):
Marx wrote:
malachi wrote: Unit origami is one of my preferred modes.
Marx wrote:I follow the origami reference to just paper folding. But if we consider this to be true, then every unintentional fold in a piece of paper is a work or origami.
This is a debate that some parts of the art world have already been through, in particular modern art. I would argue that any folded paper could be considered a work of origami.

Here is where I'm going to get a little pedantic. While glue may be a more complex issue in this regard, cutting is not. Humans have had cutting tools for a very, very long time. In fact, if it were not for the existence of effective cutting tools, how would the first origami artists have managed to start with a square in the first place?

The basic point I am arguing is that the meaning of origami should be as inclusive as reasonably possible. Narrowing the scope for "purity" does not provide enough benifit, in my opinion, to warrant the restrictions.


Wow, that's nice straw man. I don't agree with all of your assertions. I'm not sure I agree with any of them.

Also, I don't understand what you mean about unfairness. The idea of fairness might matter if this were some sort of contest, but it is not. If it were, I could understand the need to have rules in place to restrict the entries, even if I might not agree with a specific implementation, but we're talking about the wide world of possibilities, so I don't see how fairness enters into it.
For one, I don't understand why everyone is getting so worked up. I don't personally like some forms of origami and don't consider them PURE. You're not going to change my opinions, and yet we all continue to challenge them? As for the fairness argument, that is what I am talking about. If we are to organize models and compare them to each other, shouldn't we have a standard for them to adhere to? This is the entire basis of all of my opinions. When you're tooling around with paper and creating your own models and sculptures, I don't care what you do, because I don't think anyone here hasn't folded a modular piece. I don't think anyone here makes their own model and then says "Is this origami pure or not?"

I do have to give you a lot of credit for the cutting tools, though. I never though about it from that perspective.
But very often, it isn't necessary to quote at all. You could for example just write: Malachi, you can be absolutely sure that nobody will delete your account just because of your quoting habits!
In that way, I don't need to quote the person I'm answering, but it's absolutely clear to what part of what message I was referring to.
Last edited by origami_8 on October 27th, 2007, 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Friet
Senior Member
Posts: 264
Joined: April 1st, 2005, 5:29 pm
Location: Zwolle, The Netherlands

Post by Friet »

Stop quoting so much Anna ;)
User avatar
Alexandre
Senior Member
Posts: 341
Joined: December 14th, 2005, 5:42 pm
Location: London, UK

Post by Alexandre »

Friet you made me laught !
Jeffery Mewtamer
Newbie
Posts: 15
Joined: October 26th, 2007, 9:05 pm

Post by Jeffery Mewtamer »

Quoting is a double-edged sword. If used properly, they can make posts much easier to read and understand, but if used inappropriately, they become annoying and can make it difficult to understand what someone is responding to.

When quoting, I tend to quote individual sentences or short paragraphs and make responses to the quoted text immediately following the quote box. If I want to respond to a larger chuck of text from the same post, I use point-by-point quote and respond to make my post clearer.

Quote Pyramids are a pet peeve of mine. Quoting an entire conversation is never necessary and is very annoying. If you must put a quote within a quote, please let it be because it is vital to understand your post.
Post Reply