Talk:Double posting

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-06-04. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-03-03. The result of the discussion was Merge to Internet Forum.

Keeping this article

I figured it would be proposed. Here's logic for keeping: ~~29,800,000 Google hits for "double posting".~~ The term is very widely used and I have seen it come into play and nearly every forum. Interestingly enough, "noob" gets less hits. It should be kept. --SeizureDog 01:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1,680,000 Google hits for "double post"

605,000 Google hits for "double posting"

Apparently, I didn't put quotes around the first time.--SeizureDog 02:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia namespace reference

There shouldn't be such thing in a main article. It ties the content to Wikipedia.66.130.207.20 05:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed 98% of article

I removed almost all of this article, as it was unsourced original research. Since this article survived an AfD debate only 2 months ago, it would seem inappropriate to attempt to delete it all again without giving someone a chance to make this a bright, shining article as the AfD participants believed was going to happen. So, have at it. This will, no doubt, make featured article soon. Here is the content I removed:

"Many people hate the practice as it wastes space and the user could have used an edit button to add the comments to his first post. On forums without edit buttons, such as Newgrounds, it is not looked down on as harshly, but is still considered inappropriate. The term can be expand to triple posting and beyond depending on the number of posts in succession.

Reasons for double posting

There are a number of reasons why double posting can occur.

Users may click on "OK" buttons multiple times if a web form is taking a long time to send, especially common with dial-up users. This can result in multiple postings occuring. This kind of multiple post is many cases detected by software and removed, other forums use javascript to make the submit button unclickable once it has been pressed to prevent double posting.
Some message systems, for example usenet and mailing lists, can have a long delay between a message being posted and appearing. Users then assume their message is not going to appear and repost the message.
Reposting questions due to lack of reply.
cross posting, which is posting the same message to multiple lists or message boards, is sometimes called double posting. For example: posting the same question in more than one subpage at Wikipedia:Reference desk is specifically mentioned as bad form in its rules.
Users wishing to Bump up their thread.

Reaction to double posting While most forums do not have specific rules prohihiting double posting, it is generally considered to be an unwritten rule not to do so on many forums and may cause other users to flame the double poster. However, double posting can be considered forum spam on some sites, making it a bannable offence, especially if on purpose. Double posting also may be done with the intent to raise one's post count or other factors such as gold on forums where additional posting is rewarded."

--Xyzzyplugh 14:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double posting does NOT mean...

When two DIFFERENT posts are made consecutively without someone else's post separating them. I don't know how long the person that wrote that has been on the internet, same goes for the people who "Frown" upon it, but that's just silly. The whole thing about two DIFFERENT posts being considered double posting doesn't make any sense. I'm replying to separate posts therefore they should be two separate posts. What difference does it make if both replies are in the same post or in two consecutive posts? If I edit the second reply into the first reply, someone who has read the first reply might not see the edited in part.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.109.42 (talk • contribs)

Double posting has different meanings on various forums. All of the definitions given in the article are used. --- RockMFR 03:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That definition/meaning is really stupid. Why should the distance between two posts mean ANYTHING?

Okay. I just made a few edits so it doesn't favor one definition over the other. I agree that the first definition is not extremely common. --- RockMFR 04:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on the internet since it sucked (the 90s). The first definition is one I see used on slow moving forums, the second is one I've seen on Newgrounds' forums (have no edit button), and the third is one I've seen here on Wikipedia. If you still don't believe me, check out what other people have to say about it on UrbanDictionay (which I'll note that I didn't have to check in making this article).--SeizureDog 13:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the history of it. It's an arbitrary rule that is STUPID. WHY SHOULD IT MATTER IF THERE IS A POST SEPARATING TWO POSTS BY THE SAME PERSON IF THOSE POSTS ARE DIFFERENT???? People say you should edit your 2nd reply into your 1st, and I don't see any reasoning behind that. For one, they could be completely unrelated replies. Two, the big one here, is that people who read the first reply/post, may miss the edited in reply. I find that rude to them and to the poster who took the time to make a reply which he may want to be seen.

Redirected to Internet forum

This page was recently redirected to Internet forum. Double redirects at "Triple posting" and "Double post" have also been redirected. --- RockMFR 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article. This really should have been discussed first. It was determined in the AFD that enough people felt that this could be expanded beyond a dicdif. --SeizureDog 03:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who redirected it. This article would need to have reliable sources to be kept, or else it violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. Do you believe there are any reliable sources for this? I'll wait a day or two before I put it up for AfD again in case someone thinks they can find some. --Xyzzyplugh 12:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but the article already has three citations. It's a difficult subject to write properly about, considering that most of the information for it is just basic, common, internet knowledge, and reliable sources that spell out what they are exactly are rather hard to come by. Perhaps something can be found in something like Internet Forums for Dummies book, but that's not exactly the sort of thing I plan on buying. But yes, please stick it up for AFD again instead of just redirecting like you did. Redirects are find when you're merging, but that was just straight, undiscussed deletion really.--SeizureDog 16:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent AfD came up with a merge result, so I've redirected it again. Though possibly forum spam may be a better place to merge it into in the long run. Bryan Derksen 04:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]