I (generally) have a personal rule for myself that if I'm going to post on a thread I try to read ALL preceding posts before I add my own perspective. Something I find quite frustrating to read on many threads are posts that are seemingly ignorant to the posts that preceded them.
For instance, in recently reading through the now very verbose thread on landfill pianos I found on more than one occasion the following type of conversation :

Poster A says: "how sad! All those pianos could have went to poor families who can't afford a new piano"

Poster B says: INSERT A COMPELLING ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY

Poster C says: "how sad! All those pianos could have went to poor families that can't a new piano"

It drives me nuts! Conversations go in circles with people adding seemingly random interjections and the same stuff gets said over and over again.

So my question is:
Do you respond to the OP or the THREAD?
I like the idea of a thread being a developing conversation and I find that sometimes this is impeded by posters repeating things that were said two or three posts prior and therefore adding more WORDS to the thread without adding new IDEAS.

I'm not making a judgement call here. We can all post how we choose. I'm just curious what you take on this is.

Cheers,
Adrean

Hi Adrean,

I try to keep on the track laid down by the OP. Unintentional straying from topic is common, and at times I try to direct it back to the original question or premise. A poster only responding to the last reply, without knowing the history of the thread, drives me nuts. I call it the dreaded cyclical syndrome. Then a chain developes which is nothing more than a series of answers to totally loose the intention of the OP.

I will now stray from your question by wondering how a thread about a Kawai accoustic will be discussing a Hammond B3 via a short diversion on a Harley.

I mostly like talking about pianos on these forums. But if one wants to talk about groovy clothes on a piano forum I'm hip with that too. My current favorite style is the non sequitur. But don't misunderstand me, I agree with you, we shouldn't throw away good pants, shirts, etc, when someone else could wear them.

I liked your happy face!


...and I agree with OP.

To continue, I haven't been on the site very much until recently and I have been trying to catch up on what's been going on in my absence. Some threads of interest are rather long and I've had trouble following some of them, not to mention it's time-consuming.

It's a good reminder for posters to try and stick with the topic at hand, but sometimes it's easy to go off track.

I have started to skim posts quickly to see if it is relevant to the thread before reading the whole thing. Seems to help.

I see a couple of factors here. One is how, if you're logged in and you click on a thread, it takes you to the latest posts since your last visit, or at least what it thinks is the latest post. This has some unintended side-effects.

To start with, the forum software seems a bit flaky about how it decides what I have or have not already seen. For example, replying on a thread seems to make it think you have already read everything posted on all forums prior to your reply. This makes it easy to think that you're all caught up on a thread when in fact you've missed a few significant events.

Also, when you're only seeing the last few posts of a thread, it can become easy (for me at least) to get confused about where exactly the thread is going and what is it supposed to be about. What was the OP's question anyway? vs. what about this most-fascinating-to-me tangent? Or, having been here a while, what was said in this particular iteration of a repeating discussion vs. what was said the time before, or the time before that...

And finally, threads often end up with more than one semi-related sub-discussions going on in parallel. The same sort of thing happens on IM or chat, where, due to the delay of typing a cogent response while the other person is also busy typing a different but related idea, it often happens that we end up conducting two or more related discussions at once. This doesn't bother me, since I have friends with whom (in person) I also conduct multiple interwoven conversations at the same time (which sounds like a series of disconcerting non-sequiturs to anyone trying to eavesdrop).

I still think it's a shame that all those landfill pianos couldn't go to someone who couldn't afford a new piano.

due to time contraints i'm a bit embarrassed to say i'm jumping straight to the quick reply :-)

i agree that some threads end up going down the navel-gazing and/or OCD ratholes and if i've found the topic interesting and/or have something i want to contribute i will reply to the OP's topic without wading thru the dross.

on the other hand i know i'm guilty of meandering off the beaten path but usually only when something else piques my interest or the thread has simply run out of steam.

Minnesota Marty, I have read all the posts on this thread,, and if you ask me, I will comment on Hammonds and Harleys! HAH! They are both dear to my heart. But, back to pianos....

Good topic!

Guilty as charged.

Occasionally....

Norbert

I wonder if Hammond ever built a Sportster.

Marty, Road King or nothing! Hammond once built a Piper, Cadillac once built a Cimmaron, we have to forgive them! They have learned their lesson, except Hammond is now owned by some foreign country corp. Rather have a Cad than a modern Hammond.

Depends on the age and length of the thread. People have been talking in circles for thousands of years.