Short OPs Are Better Than Long OPs

[Locke]

(Please note that this is my own opinion and is not to be construed as a push by the moderation team to reduce lengthy posts.)

I'm sure everyone who has taken the time to compose a lengthy and well-thought-out opening post has experienced the disappointment of a high quality yet short-lived thread. Is it simply because of "tl;dr"? That may avert some lazy potential readers, but I think there is often a much deeper problem over which the author does have control.

By putting so much thought into the thread, the author is compressing the entire domain of the thread's potential into the one post, leaving little room for expansion from readers. It's tempting to impress your audience by covering all facets of the topic in one go, but if you don't leave any unanswered questions then there's no discussion - it's just a monologue which gets a few views before being overshadowed by active discussions in other threads.

I suggest that you include just enough information and opinion in your OP to get discussion growing, and you can expand upon it following the pace of the evolution of discussion while responding to others. You may find that, in addition to and because of encouraging participation in your thread, you've constructed something spread over several posts that's far superior than anything you could have authored solo in one post.

See, I've kept it short (I think?) and I haven't even considered any counter-arguments, so now you must reply!

 

[Azure Sage]

I've experienced this myself. I once made a thread discussing what a true Zelda game is to "you", and it got like two replies. I would assume this was because it was like seven, eight paragraphs long. "tl;dr" seems to be a growing problem on the internet. I am guilty of this myself sometimes, to be honest. That's why I now try to keep my threads to around three paragraphs.

 

[Wolf Sage]

I've argued this very thing when it comes to lengthy posts... The fad known as "megaposting," is the greatest example of expansive OPs with little or no room for discussion. How can there be room for any discussion if everything has been covered/answered in the OP? And what's worse is that even if the thread garners a reply or two, the original poster typically will have exhausted anything that he/she could possibly say, and thereby abandon the thread...

 

[Ganondork]

And what's worse is that even if the thread garners a reply or two, the original poster typically will have exhausted anything that he/she was planning on saying, thereby abandoning the thread...

I usually purposefully don't reply in my own threads. It just seems odd for me to quote people and reply to them. I actually didn't notice many people reply to their own threads until recently. I think that - in the case of say, a theory-related thread - if you have to defend yourself, then chances are, you ended up not using sufficient information. I also am very much against the "Yes, I agree. Thank you for commenting." type comments.

Anyway, I think that in many cases this is a legitimate issue. I myself have been very guilty of long original posts, and my threads have suffered for it. I think that megaposts have definitely contributed to this issue; a megapost original post is doomed to get few to no replies - I know this firsthand.

With this kept in mind, I do think that there is still an issue with too short of an original post. If your post is somewhere between one and five lines, you more than likely aren't getting a legitimate point across. It also depends between the subject; I myself would think that a theory should have a longer original post. This ensures that all of your points, thoughts, and evidence have been properly put out there. In a thread involving, say, a "Favorite ____," that is a different situation. In that type of a situation, I would think it best to do the intro, and then a piece of your opinion. This could offer something for others to reply to, alongside their own opinion on the subject.

More or less original posts should be short, but I do think some original posts could use some length. I usually can't stand a one-line original post; that shows little effort, and never gets your point across. It's hard to find an equilibrium, but when you do, you achieve a very successful thread.

 

[Locke]

I think that - in the case of say, a theory-related thread - if you have to defend yourself, then chances are, you ended up not using sufficient information.

This is precisely what I was thinking about. I've read several OPs that have gone out of their way to say "And don't say ____ because..." and I'm just left thinking "okay, then what am I supposed to say?" In something like an article one should certainly consider and address counter-arguments, but in a discussion setting, it doesn't make sense to guess what other people will say when one could just wait for them to say it. Maybe if no one else brings it up for a while you can throw it out there yourself to expand your argument after it's gotten some discussion, in hopes of spurring even more discussion. Granted, sometimes it is a good idea to include preemptive clarifications to prevent the same counter-argument being used over and over again.

That is, yes, Theory threads should include enough evidence in the OP to hold their own, but the OP is not the place to counter counter-arguments.

 

[A Link In Time]

I love your short and sweet OP, Locke. Well played.

After writing OPs around 1000 words in length and receiving three, at most five replies I completely agree with you. I traditionally endeavor to write detailed replies to threads however when the opening post is excessively long I sometimes halt in the middle of the reply due to perceiving that my response pales in comparison to the work of the original writer. In much the same fashion I am disappointed when someone leaves a smidgen of words to compensate for my work.

As stated by above users, there are certain exceptions to the rule where wordiness may be beneficial and even necessary to highlight a point, most prominently in Zelda Theory and under certain circumstances the Mature Discussion.

 

[Ventus]

Shorter posts in general are better than longer posts, if we're talking about discussion. I wholeheartedly agree, even though I'm culprit to longwinded, crappy posts. I mean, I'm not talking one liners, but one or two paragraph posts are what most should aim for. It's only when you're dissecting posts, and this is really when you start "debating" things, should your posts get to be almost page length.

 

[TheMasterSword]

The problem isn't just Ridiculously long OP, but the lack of pictures in said ridiculously long thread. Short isn't the right wording for it, I'd say average size. Also, TL; DR is getting used more and more, using font colors and styles doesn't happy AT ALL on this forum. I haven't seen a customized font usage in a while. IF people used these, then it would look more appealing to the eyes. Just a thought guys.

 

[Ronin]

I agree that shorter opening posts are, in general, better than a long thread introduction. I've read a great many that were concise and went straight to the point, rather than being longwinded walls of text (pointing at myself here). Lately, when I'm actually in the mood to construct a new thread, I try to keep it to about three or four paragraphs in length. That's the proper amount I feel that there should be: typically two paragraphs dedicated to establishing a debate or a point of discussion, one to distribute my own opinion, and the last one to ask readers what their thoughts are.

I used to feel that "megathreads", as they are properly called, were enough to kickstart the creativity and stimulation of a viewer. But as it turned out, they oftentimes choked any long-term deliberation; in short, the fewer things said, the better.

 

[misskitten]

I think the more accurate thing to say here is that medium sized OP's are better than long OP's. When someone says "short" in terms of post, my mind instantly go to posts consisting of one or two sentences tops, mostly asking me what my favorite/least favorite xxx is... I do agree with the argument, tho, that epic length OP's turn people off rather than engage them in discussion - and like you said, they can easily expand on their thoughts in replies further down the thread.