Poll: "Haven't read any of the other replies, but..."

[Rivka]

How do you feel when somebody jumps into a thread declaring that they haven't read the other responses and don't intend to?

 

I've been on other forums where, whether or not people actually do read the thread before posting, it's considered bad form to say you didn't read it. On the Hive, it seems like people say it all the time and I haven't seen anyone complain about it.

 

To me, it's fine on a thread that doesn't have a lot of back-and-forth ("which do you like better, Jane Austen or Georgette Heyer?"). But in a serious or contentious discussion, it seems rude to me. When someone says, "I haven't read any of the other responses, but I think..." I tend to read it as, "I can't be bothered to read to your opinion, but here, pay attention to mine!"

Edited August 20, 2011 by Rivka

[justamouse]

I take it as they are saying, "Please forgive me if this has been stated before, if the conversation has veered, if this is an unpopular viewpoint that's been debated; but I didn't get a chance to read it yet and didn't want to ignore you by NOT answering."

[NanceXToo]

It doesn't bother me. Some of the threads get insanely long and not everyone has time or reads fast enough to want to read 20 or 30 pages of replies, but still wants to answer the question asked by the OP (who is the one who REALLY ought to read all the replies, since they were the one who asked the question or whatever lol).

 

ETA: and I agree with other posters that likely the point of someone saying that is to sort of apologize in advance if they repeat something that was said already.

Edited August 20, 2011 by NanceXToo

[meggie]

well, i haven't read all the replies, so here's my two cents.

 

Sometimes it's annoying, especially when the OP has clarified part of the question or situation. But I do understand not being able to read 31 pages of....stuff. At least when they say they haven't read all of the replies, you know why they asked something someone had already given the answer to.

[mytwomonkeys]

It doesn't bother me. Some of the threads get insanely long and not everyone has time or reads fast enough to want to read 20 or 30 pages of replies, but still wants to answer the question asked by the OP (who is the one who REALLY ought to read all the replies, since they were the one who asked the question or whatever lol).

:iagree:

[Hwin]

I don't think it's rude; I think it's responding directly to the OP, rather than participating in whole discussion (and message board discussions aren't always that organized, anyway. People choose what they are going to pick up on to either dissect or :iagree: and add two cents.) However, I do think it's obvious when a thread has gone off track and someone pops in with an innocent answer to the OP.

 

I prefer to know what I'm wading into when I respond to a thread. There have definitely been a few where I read the OP, thought "Yay, I have something to contribute!" then gotten a few pages in and realized that the thread had gone in a much different direction that I would have anticipated... :001_huh:

[bbkaren]

well, i haven't read all the replies, so here's my two cents...

 

Nice! haha

[~Jo]

I take it as they are saying, "Please forgive me if this has been stated before, if the conversation has veered, if this is an unpopular viewpoint that's been debated; but I didn't get a chance to read it yet and didn't want to ignore you by NOT answering."

 

:iagree:

[ma23peas]

Reading 10 pages of comments usually does not change my opinion or suggestions for the original poster....most the time they are asking opinion or help...as long as you're offering one, isn't that what the boards are for? If someone wants my recommendation for the best Algebra book, I have an opinion, have tried 4 of them and looked at 3 others...so my opinion/suggestions stand regardless what others say.

[Upward Journey]

I take it as they are saying, "Please forgive me if this has been stated before, if the conversation has veered, if this is an unpopular viewpoint that's been debated; but I didn't get a chance to read it yet and didn't want to ignore you by NOT answering."

 

This.

[H.S. Burrow]

I take it as they are saying, "Please forgive me if this has been stated before, if the conversation has veered, if this is an unpopular viewpoint that's been debated; but I didn't get a chance to read it yet and didn't want to ignore you by NOT answering."

 

 

:iagree:

[Tohru]

How do you feel when somebody jumps into a thread declaring that they haven't read the other responses and don't intend to?

 

I've been on other forums where, whether or not people actually do read the thread before posting, it's considered bad form to say you didn't read it. On the Hive, it seems like people say it all the time and I haven't seen anyone complain about it.

 

To me, it's fine on a thread that doesn't have a lot of back-and-forth ("which do you like better, Jane Austen or Georgette Heyer?"). But in a serious or contentious discussion, it seems rude to me. When someone says, "I haven't read any of the other responses, but I think..." I tend to read it as, "I can't be bothered to read to your opinion, but here, pay attention to mine!"

 

:iagree:

 

I don't really like to see those write their opinion on a topic if they specifically state they haven't taken the time to read any other view point. I guess it's just the blatant, "I haven't read..." statement. Whether on not they did or not, doesn't bother me. Just admitting to not reading other's replies seems arrogant.

[Joanne]

I have been here 10+ years. I have read threads more than 20, 30 and 40 pages long. I have given respect and care more times than not.

 

I've paid my dues. I am not obligated to read each and every page of every thread in order to post.

 

I don't exercise that option often, but I don't think it's a problem when I do.

 

(PS: I either read the whole thing or post that I haven't)

[Mynyel]

I have done it, but when there are several pages it tends to get tedious so I say I haven't read them. Not because the opinions don't count but I say that just in case I have repeated something someone else says.

 

Which is why it does bug me just a tad when someone quotes you (when you said you didn't read the other replies) and tell you that someone else said that. :glare::D

[Negin]

Rivka, I voted when: more than 20 pages long AND other.

This is a very interesting question.

Oftentimes, when I do this, I have intent to later read every post and I usually end up doing so. Usually :tongue_smilie:. I may be eager to post and might be in a hurry or whatever. But I try to read all or most of the replies later.

Other times, I realize that many of the posts might be repeats and I really might not have time to read all of them. Or, of course, if more than 20 pages long, I might not be able to get through all that.

I don't see it as necessarily rude.

I do, however, think that the OP should take the time to read all the replies, since she's the one who asked the question to begin with.

If I've offended here since I have been guilty of this, I do apologize.

[Daisy]

I don't have a problem with it if it is a simple opinion or request thread. Some people don't want to be involved in the whole back & forth stuff. They just want to answer the OP's original post.

 

I don't think people are obligated to read an entire thread. Clearly if the conversation has veered wildly away from the original subject, it will appear a bit tacky but otherwise, I don't think it is a big deal.

[Ginevra]

Well, there I go again. Unintentional rudeness rearing its ugly head.

 

I am one of the posters who says this. When I do, I am already late to the conversation, but I guess I want to blab what I think anyway. I may not have time to read the six pages that precede my coming into the discussion. I say this, thinking that I may well be saying precisely what someone else already said. I'm not so rude as to think I alone have the brilliant, unique and correct singular thought on the matter. ;)

 

Only the OP is obligated to read every reply.

[Crissy]

I simply appears that they are replying directly to the original poster, and asking forgiveness in case someone else already stated the same opinion or advice.

 

(I didn't read the other posts before I wrote that. I hope I'm not just repeating someone else. ;))

[Negin]

I've been on other forums where, whether or not people actually do read the thread before posting, it's considered bad form to say you didn't read it. On the Hive, it seems like people say it all the time and I haven't seen anyone complain about it.

One more thing I wanted to add, I don't know about you, but this is by far the busiest and most active forum I've ever seen. On the other forums that I visit, which are, on average say 1-5 pages, you tend to read every single post, but here, where 20 + pages are quite common, most of us can't do that. We'd love to, but we just can't.

[Word Nerd]

I take it as they are saying, "Please forgive me if this has been stated before, if the conversation has veered, if this is an unpopular viewpoint that's been debated; but I didn't get a chance to read it yet and didn't want to ignore you by NOT answering."

 

:iagree: I voted that it's not ever rude.

[Negin]

I simply appears that they are replying directly to the original poster, and asking forgiveness in case someone else already stated the same opinion or advice.

(I didn't read the other posts before I wrote that. I hope I'm not just repeating someone else. ;))

:iagree:

[4wildberrys]

How embarrassing! It never dawned on me that this could be taken as being rude. I guess when I am responding without reading the replies---but usually when there are SO many pages---it's because I am responding to the OP, so oftentimes I feel that I don't need to read all the pages of replies because I just want to give my 2 cents.

[Jean in Newcastle]

It bugs me when it is an advice thread because much of the time on advice thread there is clarification from the OP as time goes by. It doesn't bug me if it is a thread on your favorite brand of peanut butter or something of that sort.

[twoxcell]

I take it as they are saying, "Please forgive me if this has been stated before, if the conversation has veered, if this is an unpopular viewpoint that's been debated; but I didn't get a chance to read it yet and didn't want to ignore you by NOT answering."

 

:iagree:

[Ginevra]

One more thing I wanted to add, I don't know about you, but this is by far the busiest and most active forum I've ever seen. On the other forums that I visit, which are, on average say 1-5 pages, you tend to read every single post, but here, where 20 + pages are quite common, most of us can't do that. We'd love to, but we just can't.

 

That's true, too! If you miss seven hours of WTM, pages of conversations have blown right on by.

 

I would be truly forced to silence if I thought it was crucial to read all of the replies in a long and important thread before I spoke to it. I already find it daunting to wade into the threads where things have taken a kilt-and-recipe-filled tangent, while I wasn't monitoring the conversation in the first place. It's fun to see what happened along the way to page 37, but it takes a time commitment that I really should be spending on...well, practically anything. :D

[Pamela H in Texas]

When *I* Have said it, it has been about "this is my opinion off the cuff" or "this is my opinion, untainted by the thread," or "I might be repeating something someone else said."

 

I usually go back and read the messages eventually...

 

If I'm not going to read the messages, I have no reason to announce it generally.

[myfunnybunch]

I usually interpret "Haven't read the other replies" to mean the poster has read and has thoughts about the original post, but hasn't had time to read others' responses. It seems to me that it's meant to either say the poster hasn't been influenced by the other opinions, may have missed an update/more info on the original post, or may unwittingly repeat something another poster has written. That's not rude, it's just offering context for the reply.

 

Cat

[regentrude]

If the OP asks a question and I feel I can contribute a factual answer that can benefit the OP, I will contribute without taking the time to read a lot of pages.

Example: What would YOU do...?/ Any experience with....?/Who has used...?

What *I* would do does not depend on what other people answered.

 

Btw, I did not read all the replies on THIS thread...

Edited August 20, 2011 by regentrude

[Kari C in SC]

I take it as they are saying, "Please forgive me if this has been stated before, if the conversation has veered, if this is an unpopular viewpoint that's been debated; but I didn't get a chance to read it yet and didn't want to ignore you by NOT answering."

 

 

:iagree:

 

Sometimes I only have a few minutes on here. I may see something that I would like to post about, but I only have a few minutes. With my mind - I will forget to come back to that post - so I would write that I haven't read the thread, but wanted to comment. It has nothing to do with wanting my opinion heard over others. It is all about lack of time for the most part.

[swellmomma]

Usually it is a case of someone replying and then planning to go back and read. I know sometimes I want to get my thoughts out before replying in order to not have my answer jaded/swayed by another poster kwim. Or if it is a really really long thread. I like to get my post in and then go back to read the other 10 pgs of replies :)

 

What I find rude is when you state something in not only the OP but also in subsequent posts that is outright ignored. For example, my post about dealing with ants. I stated in the OP Terro is not sold in Canada, yet a couple people post saying use Terro. So I reiterate that Terro is not sold in Canada. and ANOTHER poster then says use Terro. It is like someone flat out saying "I'm not going to bother actually reading what you say, I am just going to keep telling you to do it my way". Anyone who had actually read the whole OP and the replies would have seen me say that product is NOT sold in this country.

 

If they had said something like "Have not read replies yet but xyz" I would assume they were going back to read the replies after posting.

[Thea]

I take it as they are saying, "Please forgive me if this has been stated before, if the conversation has veered, if this is an unpopular viewpoint that's been debated; but I didn't get a chance to read it yet and didn't want to ignore you by NOT answering."

 

:iagree:

[Laurie4b]

I simply appears that they are replying directly to the original poster, and asking forgiveness in case someone else already stated the same opinion or advice.

 

;))

 

:iagree:

[Peela]

It doesn't bother me. I frequently skim threads myself.

[Pretty in Pink]

I don't usually wade through pages upon pages of replies (unless we're talking crock pots, of course ;)). If it's a serious subject I try to scan the pages and see if the OP has updated/clarified/added any new information to the discussion.

 

It doesn't bother me when people say that they didn't read the thread. I figure that they are interested in the topic but just don't have time to go through the entire thing. No big deal.

[Zebra]

I take it as they are saying, "Please forgive me if this has been stated before, if the conversation has veered, if this is an unpopular viewpoint that's been debated; but I didn't get a chance to read it yet and didn't want to ignore you by NOT answering."

 

:iagree:

[jewellsmommy]

It doesn't bother me. Some of the threads get insanely long and not everyone has time or reads fast enough to want to read 20 or 30 pages of replies, but still wants to answer the question asked by the OP (who is the one who REALLY ought to read all the replies, since they were the one who asked the question or whatever lol).

 

ETA: and I agree with other posters that likely the point of someone saying that is to sort of apologize in advance if they repeat something that was said already.

 

 

:iagree: I see it as answering the op. My answer is still my answer regardless of the conversation. However, you do miss additional info that may have been clarified or added.

[Onceuponatime]

I don't care if other people do this. I find it perfectly understandable and have done it a few times myself. I don't see why it should be a problem at all. In fact nothing anyone says here bothers me unless myself or others are personally attacked. Life is too short to take offense where none is intended.

[Denisemomof4]

I don't think it's rude at all.

[OrganicAnn]

I take it as 1) if there was updates, I've missed them 2) I haven't been influenced by all the other responses and/or 3) if I'm repeating what everyone else is saying, then this is why. I think it is only a caveat to preface the post, so why is it rude.

[Carol in Cal.]

I appreciate it because it shows that the perspective is not ignoring but rather unaware of posts subsequent to the OP.

If I read a post that could seem like it's rudely ignoring a bunch of prior posts, it is helpful to know that that is because it is only responding to the first one.

I usually read threads in their entirety, but not always.

[Cheryl in NM]

How do you feel when somebody jumps into a thread declaring that they haven't read the other responses and don't intend to?

 

I've been on other forums where, whether or not people actually do read the thread before posting, it's considered bad form to say you didn't read it. On the Hive, it seems like people say it all the time and I haven't seen anyone complain about it.

 

To me, it's fine on a thread that doesn't have a lot of back-and-forth ("which do you like better, Jane Austen or Georgette Heyer?"). But in a serious or contentious discussion, it seems rude to me. When someone says, "I haven't read any of the other responses, but I think..." I tend to read it as, "I can't be bothered to read to your opinion, but here, pay attention to mine!"

 

When I do it, I am responding to the original post. I either don't have the time or patience to read through the whole thread. Of course, I only do this if the OP is asking a question or for advice. For a more general discussion, I'll usually read the thread.

 

For instance, I didn't read this thread before posting. :D

[Amy in NH]

Sometimes I have something I feel might be helpful to the OP, but I don't have time to read the thread.

 

Sometimes I'd just like to make it known that it is my original perspective without having been influenced by what others have already written.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Amy in NH
(Oh, and I didn't read any other posts in this thread before posting mine.) :D

[Jean in Newcastle]

I wanted to add that now I add all updates to my OP as well as later (where it actually fits in the discussion) because people do this.

[Carrie12345]

Sometimes I have something I feel might be helpful to the OP, but I don't have time to read the thread.

 

Sometimes I'd just like to make it known that it is my original perspective without having been influenced by what others have already written.

 

Yes!

I'm easily distracted. If I'm pretty sure the conversation is going to go in 5 different directions, I'll sometimes put my take out there to avoid getting sidetracked by a bunch of different points.

 

Other times, I just get bored after the first couple of pages. :tongue_smilie:

[Danestress]

not attempting to dialog with every other member. I don't think it's rude. The poster is telling the OP, "Here is what I would do or what I think" but admitting they may be repeating something that the OP has already heard.

[annandatje]

I see no problem in replying only to the original post, so I guess I do not need to add the qualifier that I have not read all other posts in thread.

[PinkInTheBlue]

I haven't read the other replies... LOL!

 

I don't think it's fair to insist someone read every other reply before replying. Most of the time I do but, like this time, I'll just drop my ideas and then read. :) Often if I read all the other posts I end up not posting at all. That's why I've been here since day 1 with as few posts as I have. Usually I reach the end and think, "Well, so-and-so already said what I would have" and don't post.

[Nestof3]

To me, it's fine on a thread that doesn't have a lot of back-and-forth ("which do you like better, Jane Austen or Georgette Heyer?"). But in a serious or contentious discussion, it seems rude to me. When someone says, "I haven't read any of the other responses, but I think..." I tend to read it as, "I can't be bothered to read to your opinion, but here, pay attention to mine!"

 

No, I don't think your assessment of the person's intention is correct. I think people are concerned they might repeat what has already been said.

 

I only thought it was required to read the original post before posting a response. Others' posts may prompt me to add something else to the dialogue, but my initial dialogue should respond to what the OP said, right?

 

PS -- I didn't read any other responses before typing this. :lol:

[cdrumm4448]

I don't get my panties in a twist over the small stuff. We have much bigger problems to worry about right now. So, no. It doesn't bother me at all.

[2cents]

Well I really haven't read the other replies :lol: but in answer to the question, I think that there is really no requirement to read pages upon pages of replies in any thread. Sometimes there just isn't time and I don't think that should discourage people from participating.