I had a timewarp day today and yesterday, and all week, everything I set out to do has gone backwards, so apologies for late reply...
OK, here is why I asked.
I spotted a trend a while back, that the longer any replies were including mine and including those referring to long winded FAQ's, it seemed to me the less response there seemed to be to them.
I like to think or at least did think that most of my posts are/were not too waffly (is that a word, waffly?.. and, a la Mandy Rice Davies, I would say that would't I, and this negates the not too waffly because it's waffly!) anyway....I decided that the variation was content agnostic and more due to length.
I started looking at how I read and how I post, having never given it that much thought before, and yes, the first thing I do when I see a big chunk of text is scan it looking for keys. Then I read it more slowly.
I wondered if everyone did the same and scanned posts first.
Then I set to thinking, was there an optimum post size, one that's long enough to get the answer across, but not so long that the reader will skim and possibly lose interest.
I also spotted that some people (you know who you are) give naturally short replies which get to the point, and others (you also know who you are too, and I'm one....), over reply. That's not a criticism by the way, it's an interesting observation about interesting people..
So, (in this instance it's OK to start with "so" normally I wouldn't do that) I've decided based solely on the results of this completely unscientific poll that I think it's worse to over-egg the meat (see what I did there Oakbank? I'm not sure what if anything that has to do with hyperbole) and...
âfrom now on all posts will be limited to 3 lines of text
(starting with this one...ooops gone over a bit...)
Late edit, could have been worse, might have asked you about your piercings..
Originally Posted by Bev