[Pete Thomas]

I see a lot of cross posting, which I find quite annoying as it causes so much confusion.

But there now seems to be a new kind (I call it "pseudo" cross posting) whereby somebody posts a thread, but then they post another thread in a different section with a link to the original thread.

Is it just me, or is this as annoying as posting duplictates in different forums?

 

[kcp]

No, it's not just you. It is annoying and it isn't any different than cross posting, IMO.
They are also a nightmare to undo from the moderator standing point.

BTW, thanks for reporting whenever you stumble on those.

 

[Enviroguy]

Definitions of "cross posting" on the Web:

* Crossposting is the act of posting the same message to multiple forums, mailing lists, or newsgroups. This is distinct from multiposting, which involves posting multiple identical messages, each to a single forum, newsgroup, or topic area.

* Posting an article to more than one Usenet newsgroup.

* Posting the same articles or comments across several different Internet Forums. This is similar in protocol as spam.

There are other meanings too. I believe there are many different things that could be considered cross posting, such as:

1. Starting multiple threads with the same content in different areas of the forum.
2. Starting a new thread that is basically just a link to another thread in a different area of the forum.
3. Starting a new thread that is basically just a link to another thread in a different forum. (Such as the UPS horror story recently posted)
4. Linking back to other threads. (Such as when an OP posts a new thread asking about what sax to buy. And then a seasoned SOTW member posts a reply with a link to one of 10,000 other threads where the same question has been well answered.)
5. Reply with quotes from other threads.
6. Simultaneous replies that are either the same or where the first one renders the second irreverent.

And there are a lot more.

 

[Pete Thomas]

I think all that concerns SOTW is posting an identical thread starter in more than one (sub)forum on SOTW (not other sites), or as in this case, posting a new thread which is just a link to your other one.

I don't think there's any SOTW problem with your points 3 & 4.

 

[gary]

I don't know how one categorises this, or if this is what is meant in this thread, but many times I see a link used as a reference. I have no problem with that, since some references are too long to post or summarise.

What gets my goat are posts which give a link but no related information as to how the link is relevant to the conversation. I prefer at least a short statement that tells me what I will be looking at and why, particularly when in some of the more remote references you have to dig around to find out what the poster was talking about in the first place.

Or similarly, a nine minute video in YouTube where the OP is really referring to a point eight minutes into the video and doesn't just say, "check out 08:03" so you wait and wait and finally the moment comes . . . sometimes just to discover that it wasn't worth waiting for in the first place.

 

[CooolJazzz]

I don't have as much of a problem with it since I don't spend much time browsing all the different forums. I usually only click on threads from the "new posts" panel, and only when the topic seems to be something that might interest me. I can see how it would be a nuisance for people who are regular readers of a wider variety of the sub-forums than I am though.
I totally agree with gary about what I call "blind links"...with no explanation of what the link relates to. It's like someone handing you a book with a blank cover and telling you..."You MUST read this!". Uh...Yeah...Okay...*tosses it right in the trash*.
Same with youtube videos...especially the ones where the idiot who published it can't take the time to edit out the five minutes worth of tuning and milling around before the music even starts. A simple heads up to skip the first five minutes would seem easy enough to do.