to think that MN's forum is massively crap for having bad quoting facilities?

[frgr]

i get terribly lost in long threads because people all use their own way to quote other bits of people;s posts?

AIBU to sigh and wonder why MN doesn't add a better quoting thing, automatically, on posts?

MN should add a little button next to each post (next to the report link) saying "quote", and then it should take you to the normal Reply page automatically, with the poster's name in bold, and a little border around the bit you've quoted

it would make inter-post communication and logical following of threads much easier

i surely can't the only one to have suggested this? or is there some facility there which we've all not using?

so AIBU to think that MN's forum quoting (or lack of) is supremely crap?

Activate - no it's not the 'vocal minority' - it's the people who take the time to respond when the question is asked - and list all of the reasons why it would be a BadIdea.

MaryZ - how about 'vocal, opinionated, majority'

Having to c&p makes you think about what you are quoting and not just the whole post.

And it thankfully makes it very very unlikely that anyone will quote a quote within a quote within a quote.

Anyone who can't italicise or put "" around a quote so that it is distinct from their own thoughts clearly has very poor communication skills.

not the 'vocal minority' - it's the people who take the time to respond when the question is asked - and list all of the reasons why it would be a BadIdea.

I agree with ChippingIn

Why should it even be a vote?

We discusss, and MNHQ decides who has made the best argument, the for-quoting or the against-quoting.

There are lots of threads on the editing thing. HQ have responded time and again with a NO.

and quoting got the same response.

If enough people want it then they'll have a look, which to my mind means they will pretend to consider it and then say "no, no quotes, only we can quote, stop asking FFS".

Yes MaryZ and some people have trouble working out that 100 posters saying NO and 2 posters saying YES makes the NO's the majority

Yes Trill - no voting required. Discussion by posters, decision by MN :) (again and again and again - LOL)

MaryZ - definitely proportional voting :)

It might even be a self-selecting majority, actually.

When it comes to any views being made, a lot depends on where something is posted as to whether one even sees it.

I note there's Site Stuff (which often has queries of a technical/software nature to do with the operation of the MN site) and Site Tech Stuff yet here we are discussing the issue in AIBU... (Just looked in Site Tech Stuff and see several issues are being discussed there and in Site Stuff... so one is redundant, probably STS)

I agree with a poster who wrote something on this thread. I disagree with another poster who wrote something else.
Can you identify them? No, I thought not .

I often quote other posters to put my reply in context by showing which opinion of which poster I am responding to. If I quote, I usually quote only the particular phrase or sentence that I want to respond to, not the entire content of a long post.

I'm satisfied with my copy and paste method, which I shall continue to use. I've not felt the need for a more automated quote facility to be provided by Mumsnet, but I do notice that MNHQ people sometimes use such a quote message format when they reply on threads.

I would like a quote facility and a time limited edit button

I'm leaving if we start all that boxes-of-quotes-in-a-different-colour shenanigans

it's the thin end of the wedge

The subject of quoting being regarded as passive aggressive was raised earlier in this thread.
I'll leave you to search back to find the post that did so.

Is it passive aggressive to have a problem with being quoted?

Especially for you, Maryz!

vesuvia - can only agree that there's little need for a quote box and yes, have seen MNHQ staff use same, but am disappointed if they are unable or unwilling to 'trim' what they quote, and from what I've seen, one or other of those is true. On a thread where I was critical of MNHQ going ahead with backing the 'block porn at ISP' proposal, some posts were quoted in full (fortunately not mine, as mine often seem twice or thrice the length of many others!)

maryz - not sure why you would feel intimidated on STS given the most recent half dozen threads have (probably) been duplicates (in concern/ view/ query) as ones which have appeared in Site Stuff, and you're not reluctant to post there, are you ?

As for 'passive aggressive' whatever that's meant to mean (and yes, I am sure there are several threads I could read) I'd just say 'mumbo jumbo' language from someone who has a fear dislike/ mistrust in being quoted.

There's nothing bad with a C+P from another post to give context, so long as it is clear it is a quote and that (whether critical or supportive) anything following on is related to what was quoted. It is a considerable aid to clarity, knowing precisely which part of a post is under scrutiny, and if someone agreed with the comments I've just made by indicating 'in your post at 19:17' ... I'd probably ask them to clarify which specific points they were picking up on, because it would be 'odd' in my view to agree / disagree with every point made, and a "me too" response would be better (if ever there was a wish to have indicators about specific posts by a 'like' or 'dislike' button).

Don't understand why quoting is seen as passive aggressive really - what if I quote you and say 'agree wholeheartedly, gosh I wish I'd said it as well as you'?

Of course it can go the other way too, but disagreeing with someone amounts to the same thing whether you bother to cut and paste their quote or not.

(just because it's a shame not to use it )