|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Question about Kerygmania policy
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
Firstly, a big thankyou to our Keryg hosts for all the work they do keeping the conversation moving down there. I have genuine question / suggestion about policy, which is not a complaint at all. There is currently a rule that if you include a Bible reference in your post, you're meant to make that reference link to an online Bible. Posters seem pretty spotty in their observance of this, so hosts have to spend quite a bit of time adding these links.
My question is: why? If a reader of a post wants to check a Bible reference in the post, why can't they type it into their favorite online Bible themselves? Now there are many reasons why a poster might want to include a link (for instance, if they want the reader to read a certain translation, or if they think that a post with links will carry more persuasive weight). But, there are also reasons why you might choose not to provide links. Maybe someone's asked you for a bunch of references and you're happy to take the time to hunt for them but not the extra time to put in links for them all. Right now, you have no legitimate option except to not post at all, or to post an unlinked list knowing you're creating a ton of extra work for the hosts. Why not shift that work to a reader who wants to look at all those references online?
My point is that the decision to link or not seems like a decision that can be safely left in the poster's hands, knowing that their post may attract less interest if they don't link to key texts.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
By the way, the preamble to the board doesn't state any such rule, and the board guidelines only apply it to the opening post. If we returned to the rule as written, rather than the much broader version that has become our practice, I think that would make a lot of sense.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
If a reader of a post wants to check a Bible reference in the post, why can't they type it into their favorite online Bible themselves?
My point is that the decision to link or not seems like a decision that can be safely left in the poster's hands, knowing that their post may attract less interest if they don't link to key texts.
This assumes that everyone who reads Keryg has a favorite online Bible. This is probably true of the Keryg regulars, but it creates a problem for shippies who are not used to online Bibles and come to ask just one question. These are actually my favorite posters. I don't want them to be discouraged.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
There are three linked to from the front page of Keryg. Now, my personal favorite (net.bible.org) isn't there, but the three that are are perfectly fine.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
...type it into their favorite online Bible themselves...
Type? Type??
Who types this stuff any more?
Just select it with the mouse, right click on the selected text, pick google off the pop-up menu, and you're off to the races.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
My response would be very similar to Moo's: simply to make the discussion more accessible, especially to those who may be visiting Kerygmania for the first time and/or those who aren't "regulars."
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
But, there are also reasons why you might choose not to provide links. Maybe someone's asked you for a bunch of references and you're happy to take the time to hunt for them but not the extra time to put in links for them all. Right now, you have no legitimate option except to not post at all, or to post an unlinked list knowing you're creating a ton of extra work for the hosts. Why not shift that work to a reader who wants to look at all those references online?
Can you give me a specific example of this kind of thing? I have problem getting my mind around it. Once I have found relevant Bible references, it doesn't take that much time to make the links. It's finding the references to begin with that is time-consuming.
quote:
There are three linked to from the front page of Keryg. Now, my personal favorite (net.bible.org) isn't there, but the three that are are perfectly fine.
I suspect that many who post in Keryg have not read the top of the page. I confess that on the rare occasions when I post in Eccles or the Circus, I don't know exactly what's at the top of the first page. I know the remit of the boards, but that's it.
I am fine with the idea of substituting (net.bible.org) for Crosswalk.
Moo
[ 03. July 2013, 12:00: Message edited by: Moo ]
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
When discussing a Bible verse, I really find it helpful to have it right in front of me. That way I can keep referring back to it as the conversation flows.
Since the King James Version is in public domain, couldn't we post that version in the OP? Then if someone wanted to say, "MY NIV translates this word as that, they can.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
When discussing a Bible verse, I really find it helpful to have it right in front of me. That way I can keep referring back to it as the conversation flows.
And I think that is the point of the policy. As I understand it, the link just needs to be in the thread somewhere--that is why one generally looks to the OP to provide a link to the verse in question. Nobody else needs to link to it again because there is a link in the thread. But if the discussion moves on to other verses, it is useful to have links as you go along.
For example, if the discussion is about the Wedding Feast at Cana and whether Jesus worried about gaining weight, I might say that the matter was completely answered by Proverbs 11:1.
But that isn't helpful, is it?
Now if I say it is answered by Proverbs 11:1, it makes much more sense.
Well, a little more sense.
Well, as much sense as I ever make, at least...
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Can you give me a specific example of this kind of thing?
This is the kind of post I was thinking of.
I agree the rule as enforced makes the discussion more readable. But, I think the rule as written (ie. limiting its scope to the OP) would achieve that adequately. It would also make it easier to post. I suppose it depends on what you're trying to encourage people to do: read or write.
I'm certainly not going to make a big issue of this. If no-one else posts anything in agreement, consider it dropped.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I don't want to make an issue of it either as I rarely post in Keryg, although I read it often. However there seems to be an assumption that posting and reading links is as easy as reading something typed in the OP. With my current computer, posting a link takes quit a bit of time including turning off certain settings, etc. Reading a link takes a click on the link, a click on the icon that makes the new page large, some scrolling, a click to return and then, about half the time, instead of returning to the ship it throws me back to my home page. This is a brand new computer with 2013 "improvements." I doubt if most people find any of this a great burden, but I'm just saying.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
Twilight, try right-clicking the link and choosing "Open in New Tab" or whatever similar option your browser presents. I use that a lot to be able to keep my place on the original thread when following links.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Thanks for that Monkeylizard. I started with an IMac where "right clicking" wasn't a thing so now that I have this emachine I forget it's an option.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peter Owen
Shipmate
# 134
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Since the King James Version is in public domain, ...
Not in the UK.
copyright status of the KJV
--------------------
Πετρος
Posts: 266 | From: overlooking Liverpool Bay | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Regarding whether readers could be left to look up the references themselves instead of the poster including the link: it took me months of reading Kerygmania before I figured out how to find a Bible passage online in any convenient way.
I was aware fairly early on of the links to online Bibles in the top page information on Kerygmania, but everytime a Bible passage came up that wasn't linked, I had to exit the thread, go to the top of Kerygmania (I guess I could have had a second window open for all of this, but like I said, it took me months to figure this all out), find the links to Bibles, ponder which one to use, go to the link, figure out how to enter a Bible reference, ponder which translation I wanted, hunt fruitlessly for an RSV or NRSV option (I finally found bible.oremus.org, but again, that took months), get the text, gnash my teeth over the pedestrian NIV translation, and return to the initial thread.
So I appreciate the links.
I think it wasn't until I started making posts in Kerygmania with my own citations of Bible passages that I really started to understand, through repetition, how to find Bible passages online with any ease.
Plus it's just convenient for the poster to provide the link so that I as the reader can just click and read the passage they are thinking about, rather than have to haul out my own looking-up apparatus. Also, overall it's more efficient for the poster to look up and provide the link once than for many readers to all have to reduplicate that effort many times over as they each look up the passage.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Until now I thought the rule was only if you wanted to open a thread to discuss a specific passage, you should include a link to the passage in the OP. That's why I didn't include a link in this post.
Thanks for the correction Mamacita, I'll try to always include a link from now on.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Can you give me a specific example of this kind of thing?
This is the kind of post I was thinking of.
If you had simply listed the passages without linking to them, I suspect many people would not have bothered to look them up.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Until now I thought the rule was only if you wanted to open a thread to discuss a specific passage, you should include a link to the passage in the OP. That's why I didn't include a link in this post.
Thanks for the correction Mamacita, I'll try to always include a link from now on.
You are welcome. Let me add that, from my point of view, it isn't about rules as much as it's about being able to follow the discussion. Using your example, LeRoc, the post in which you expanded the discussion by bringing in an illustration from a completely different verse (your reference to Genesis 3) -- it was an excellent point that you made, and it would have been easy for the casual reader, or one who may have been reading via mobile, to just skip over your post and miss the point. I figure the few seconds it took to add the link just brings more folks into the conversation.
Which is exactly the point Hedgehog made above, only in a more interesting and hilarious post. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 04. July 2013, 02:02: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
I have no dog in the fight, but ISTM that not requiring links would make it easier for people to dump a shedload of references on a thread, which would add nothing to the conversation and would freeze people out who didn't know their Bible inside out...
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
I think the links are helpful - and, in general, if we assume even three people are going to look them up (or click on a link), a lot less work is being done if a poster bothers to include a link.
But for the (rare) case like Hart is bringing up - I wonder if we could allow someone to say something like, "I don't have time to do the links right now, but wanted to answer your question. I'll create links in a later post, if anyone's interested..." or something like that, which would allow a poster to provide requested resources quickly in the (rare) case they don't have time to do all the linking.
Chances are, anyway, such a post is directed toward a particular question by a particular poster, and few people would actually follow all the links. But the person who posted the list really should come back when they have more time and create a new post with all the links, I would think.
Personally, I'd be content to grab a physical Bible when confronted with a list of references, and just page through to each one. But if the links were there, I'd likely use them.
Just a thought (and attempt at a compromise of sorts).
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
