[Paul_Seng]

For those that have posted the "Directv plans on monthly fees for HDTV" why are you stating it like it is a statement from directv instead of prediction from a site where there is no official basis? People, if you can be more accurate in you title's it would make it easier to surf these posts for myself and others.

Thank You

 

[Ratman]

Why is this a problem? We all have opinions to share. It's documented, it's worth discussion and we (you) have the option to read, reply, or ignore whether it is 'official' or not.


I think this post/prediction holds water.


Ratman

My Opinion Inc.

EIEIO

 

[JimboG]

Ratman,


I don't think the issue is whether one ought to be able to post speculation, intuition or inklings. The concern was that people should accurately lable their posts. For instance, "another lame prediction from Phill Swann" vs "DirecTV [definately] plans monthly fee for HDTV". You can post most anything you want related to HDTV programming here, just choose an accurate title.


Jim

 

[Paul_Seng]

Ratman, it is like a newspaper having a headline saying "USA will send troops to N Korea", instead of "Bush alluding military might goto N Korea". Some people here will want to know if this is speculation or official before reading the post.

 

[Ken H]

Because like many other human misunderstandings, the author of the statement (in reality a question) assumes everyone else understands what they mean.


In this case, asking a question without the question mark.

 

[CycloneGT]

I'm with Paul on this one. One of the things that I really like about AVS Forums is that for the most part that posts usually get posted in the proper forum, and that subjects accurately reflect the post. A lot of other forums are quite messy. So I consider a in-accurate subject to be an offense. Luckily Moderators here keep on top of things and will rename poorly worded topics and relocate them to the proper forums.

 

[Benji]

I believe there are 2 basic reasons for misleading posts: (1) The poster is not a very articulate person and can not properly express himself, or (2) The poster is purposely misleading to create a controversial thread (an ego thing) that keeps purpetuating itself.

 

[Jerry G]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ratman Why is this a problem? We all have opinions to share. It's documented, it's worth discussion and we (you) have the option to read, reply, or ignore whether it is 'official' or not. I think this post/prediction holds water. Ratman My Opinion Inc. EIEIO

I just knew that Paul was going to get criticized by someone, even though he's absolutely correct.


It's something called common courtesy and taking two milliseconds to think about a post before making it. Think about it, Ratman. There's nothing wrong with being grammatically correct and using a question mark when the thread is a question. Not doing this leads to confusion and misunderstandings. Is that a desirable goal?

 

[WOLVERNOLE]

Thank you Gerry. Well stated.

 

[Kipp Jones]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jerry G I just knew that Paul was going to get criticized by someone, even though he's absolutely correct. It's something called common courtesy and taking two milliseconds to think about a post before making it. Think about it, Ratman. There's nothing wrong with being grammatically correct and using a question mark when the thread is a question. Not doing this leads to confusion and misunderstandings. Is that a desirable goal?

I agree with Jerry. Hey Jerry...how about that!

 

[Foddon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jerry G I just knew that Paul was going to get criticized by someone, even though he's absolutely correct. It's something called common courtesy and taking two milliseconds to think about a post before making it. Think about it, Ratman. There's nothing wrong with being grammatically correct and using a question mark when the thread is a question. Not doing this leads to confusion and misunderstandings. Is that a desirable goal?

I think it's more of a matter of the people posting the threads not being familiar with HD news, and the fact that most of the time speculation doesn't mean anything until it actually happens. When they're making their posts, I really don't think they're being inconsiderate, but probably the opposite; trying to pass on information that they take as news. Once they've been around for a while, they'll most likely realize why it's important to add question marks to such posts.


I think it's important for everyone else to realize this, and instead of criticizing these posters, briefly educate them.

 

[Vaggeto]

It could have been posted that way on purpose to make you go in and read it. I know I did as soon as I saw the title. But once I read it, I quickly found out it was a prediction, but that didn't make me mad at the title at all.

 

[Ratman]

Okay, okay! I guess I can be spanked!


I just interpreted the post as being overly critical (picky perhaps?). There are new posts every day with titles that are far more worse/misleading/unclear than the one being scoffed.


My bad...

 

[DP1]

Personally, I dont even care whether they have question marks at the end or not. I imagine I'm going to open it regardless just for the sport of it. Whats it take, 3 seconds of my time?


What makes me laugh though is when the title and message contained are verbatim to another thread (or in this case 2 others) thats only about 8 or 10 threads down on the 1st page. That leads me to believe that people think they're going to come here without even reading or looking at the last couple dozen threads, thinking they some how have a scoop.


Well, this just in..... 90% of the time around here, if theres something from a 3rd party thats even remotely "newsworthy" (or even merely worth discussing) you can bet it's already been posted within about 10 minutes of it's "ink being dried" at it's original source.

 

[Jerry G]

Quote:

Originally posted by DP1 Personally, I dont even care whether they have question marks at the end or not. I imagine I'm going to open it regardless just for the sport of it. Whats it take, 3 seconds of my time?

Dan, in the past (a few years ago), I had the time and desire to read just about every new post in 3 or 4 sections. Now I have less time and much less desire. If there are new posts in 10 threads, I may look at only 1 or 2 of those. So I'm much more selective and don't like getting sucked into a thread I have no interest in reading because of a misleading title. Whether it's takes 3 seconds or 40 seconds (when the forum isn't running smoothly) isn't the point. The point is to be considerate of other participants and to make some effort to be clear and precise in describing a thread title. What's wrong with that?


BTW, I just love those threads with titles like "Help", "Wow", "What do you guys think of this?". I don't even look at those threads anymore. Don't you think the poster might garner more views if he had a descriptive title?

 

[JoeInNVa]

Cause some of us are Human and are prone to make mistakes.

 

[DP1]

Oh I understand what you're saying, Jerry. I can easily see why this issue would be a pet peeve of folks. This particular one just isnt one of mine. Rest assured though I probably have a half dozen others of my own.. it's just that I'm not going to bother starting a thread about them because they'd just go in one "ear" and out the other anyway.


Opening a particular new thread that turns out to have nothing of substance isnt much different waste of time wise for example than reopening an existing thread that does have merit only to find out that the most recent unread post was just somebody saying "me too".

 

[Paul_Seng]

I agree with Jerry. I come to this forum more to help people when problems arise and to see if there is any news going on in the HD world. I would still read the post if it mentioned that it was speculation, but I guess it is just a pet peeve of mine regardless if it is an honest mistake or deliberately done to get people to read it.

There have been many threads that come across as fact and actually were speculation. When you have sometimes 10-20 of these and have to read the post and a link to another web page the 2-3 seconds becomes 2-3 minutes on one thread. If there are 20 such threads in one day that is 40 minutes of time wasted when the title could have told all.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

The thing that agrivates me is I have been talking to soome of the top people at each company. And minuites after talking with them I come here and someone posts a message that Abe Lincolns Doctors Dog's, CSR from Company X said that Whatever HD is really coming and should be here next week. And they believe it when its not even remotely true.


And every weekend when ESPN-D (ESPN Deportes) comes on we have lots of posts SWEARING that ESPN-HD is being added this weekend.


Makes me want to go, arggg!!!!!!!!!!

 

[David F]

Well then, Scott, just go arrggggg!