Philosophical Question - quote function

[Air]

Why is it that there are two kinds of quotes? The 'normal' way it used to be if the quote is attributed to someone and then if it's not the barely readable way?

Looks like this, great, easy, universal

Case II: This is really hard to read - why does it matter if it's attributed to someone or not?

[East Hill]

Case II: This is really hard to read - why does it matter if it's attributed to someone or not?

Because if you don't see the original attribution to be able to view the quote in context, it could be misquoted or taken out of context:



I wouldn't enable her anymore, just very rude.



I wouldn't play with her anymore, she's just very rude.

See the difference?

East Hill

[Air]

See the difference?

No - they both look the same (I'm looking at formatting; not context. Holy old quote by the way!). Are you saying that the unreadable one is meant as a warning that it wasn't attributed? Wouldn't someone be able to see that just by the title of the quoted box? Why drastically change the formatting for a quote no matter if there is a source or not?

Here's one
Here's one

What does the addition of 'Poopy Head' or '.' do to the overall meaning of the quote? Not much - but at least the formatting is easy to read. If you wanted to make a point of it being attributed or not it could be a different colored box; but that drastic of a change seems to be a poor design choice for a user.

[bdcheung]

you didn't say this.

And nobody said this

and I don't remember when I said this

:)

[East Hill]

I don't know why the formatting is different--one of the geeks will have to answer that.

I just know that when I see the blue with the arrow next to it, I can go take a look at the post you made, and determine the context and whether or not you've been quoted correctly.

Otherwise, I could make up all sorts of stuff, and say that you're responsible.

It's essentially to keep trolls from messin' with ya.

East Hill

[Air]

Ahh - the blue arrow thing is cool, agreed :)

But if I'm quoting an article that I've already linked to; or break someone's argument into blocks to respond to then I have to put something in there every time when it's obvious it's the person's quote. The formatting just looks like a mistake though without a quote=something in there.

[East Hill]

Ahh - the blue arrow thing is cool, agreed :)

But if I'm quoting an article that I've already linked to; or break someone's argument into blocks to respond to then I have to put something in there every time when it's obvious it's the person's quote. The formatting just looks like a mistake though without a quote=something in there.

I think what is confusing me is that I don't know how you are accomplishing the tiny formatting. I can go and do a copy and paste from the 'reply to this post' (which gives me the blue arrow), or a direct copy and paste from the post itself (and add my own 'originally posted by' generic coding) which gives me a simple non-blue arrow box, or do a copy and paste from the original post, and supply my own quotation marks.

I don't think I've ever done a quote where the text comes out looking like the quote in your first post [puzzled smiley] ? [/puzzled smiley].

East Hill

[Air]

Ahhh...

Type in without the space between the [ and q:

[ quote]blah[/quote]
[ quote=something]blah[/quote]

[East Hill]

blah

blah

So that's how that happens :eek: ! Well, I always like to know who supposedly said something so that I can go back and take a look for myself, so I go with the blue arrow thing.

I have a suspicious mind!

East Hill

[Air]

I think what is confusing me is that I don't know how you are accomplishing the tiny formatting.

Solved that

I can go and do a copy and paste from the 'reply to this post' (which gives me the blue arrow),

Right, no arguments there.

or a direct copy and paste from the post itself (and add my own 'originally posted by' generic coding)

But when you do that you lose the arrow and the coding.

which gives me a simple non-blue arrow box, or do a copy and paste from the original post, and supply my own quotation marks.

Love the blue arrow!

I don't think I've ever done a quote where the text comes out looking like the quote in your first post [puzzled smiley] ? [/puzzled smiley].

East Hill

See there's sometimes where breaking up the original quote to respond can make sense (granted this wasn't the best example but you get my drift). It's obvious it's all from the same quote. Also when quoting from a magazine article I'll post something like:

Here's an article (http://gothamist.com)

Here's the body of the article

Again - I'm still giving credit but the box is tiny. In order for it to show up I have to do something artificial like put a '.' in there which seems like a silly workaround.

Here's an article (http://gothamist.com)

Here's the body of the article

[East Hill]

Solved that



Right, no arguments there.



But when you do that you lose the arrow and the coding.



Love the blue arrow!



See there's sometimes where breaking up the original quote to respond can make sense (granted this wasn't the best example but you get my drift). It's obvious it's all from the same quote. Also when quoting from a magazine article I'll post something like:

Here's an article (http://gothamist.com)



Again - I'm still giving credit but the box is tiny. In order for it to show up I have to do something artificial like put a '.' in there which seems like a silly workaround.

Here's an article (http://gothamist.com)

It must have made sense to someone originally--let's ask them :D .

East Hill

[Air]

Bump for someone with a blue star :)

[cuda2k]

fwiw - this was changed a while back. Not sure why, of it was an accidental by-product of another change. But it is how it is. I think a mod or two even brought up the change and our rather dislike of it when it happened. But nothing was really done about it. It's something to do with the page templates or something like that. When search gets fixed for good, I'll see what might be able to be done to at least be consistent about it.

[Air]

Thanks! I knew it changed a while ago (when the blue arrows and those in-post ads that I don't see popped up) and thought it may have been a template issue. When it wasn't changed back I thought there may have been a design issue behind it but couldn't figure one out.

[Maelstrom]

fwiw - this was changed a while back. Not sure why, of it was an accidental by-product of another change. But it is how it is. I think a mod or two even brought up the change and our rather dislike of it when it happened. But nothing was really done about it. It's something to do with the page templates or something like that. When search gets fixed for good, I'll see what might be able to be done to at least be consistent about it.

It was likely a revision done in a vbulletin update. It happened on a number of forums.

I would definitely voice my opinion in the negative. I don't like it.