Azalais wrote: > Aileen wrote: > > > Azalais: Would the collapse thing work for you? It gets rid of the > annoying > > long post, and the OP never has to know. > Sure. That would totally work for *me*. > > But if I thought it was just *my* problem I'd never have > said this much about it. I see a lot of pointless arguments on > LJ about whether or not something ought to be cut and if I never > ever had to read lj-cut wank, I'd be super happy. > Well -- but it seems to me that there are people who are going to argue about whether a thing should have been cut no matter where you go and what you do; and I can certainly foresee a future in which the one-click-collapse solution is available, and there are nevertheless people who will say "But I shouldn't have to click to collapse, because she should have cut in the first place!", but you can't make them do it -- so if the service does it for them, you'll get posters saying "the evil machine put a cut where I didn't want one!", and possibly even readers saying "I shouldn't have to click to expand, especially if she didn't cut it in the first place!" Right? You can't please all of the people any of the time, and an automatic feature of the service is no exception.
A ticky box for posters that says "go ahead and cut everything over [x]" isn't a bad idea, but it's not likely the THISISIMPORTANT posters you've alluded to would ever tick it. Such a ticky box for readers, well, that's a version of what we've been talking about here, of course. :-) Fox -- http://www.squidge.org/~foxsden/ http://darthfox.livejournal.com/ "I think I'd like it if he could be wicked, and wouldn't." ~Anne of the Island
_______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
