Is there a way to limit quotes on reply posts?
There are some users who quote entire posts. It makes it very long and totally useless since the entire thread is available for all users normally. I'd think a quote is to highlight a small clip of a post that reflects on one's answer or additional question.

Could a two line quote limit somehow be implemented?

I'm sure this is low on thing to do list. Just wondering.

Only if a post can be blocked from being edited once it has been replied to. And anyway, two lines is a ridiculously low limit.

1 members found this post helpful.

We already have what I consider to be a cripplingly low limit on quotes.

I agree with people quoting someone who we know or suspect will change their question or delete it.

How about, allowing the full quote, but changing the web page presentation so that the quotes "show" as limited 2-5 lines, and then have a "more ..." link to expand the quote back to the full size if you really need to see it all again?

3 members found this post helpful.

The standard web 2.0 solution to this is "show edit history".

Totally agree.

I think the problem with any finite limit is that it will block some legitimate usage.

It should be enough if the default behaviour when you click the "quote" button on a post to reply would just make a post with two lines quoted, but still allow for full quoting via some extra clicks or manual work somehow (e.g., have the "multi-quote" button selected as well).

1 members found this post helpful.

Show people how you do it, make it a pleasure to read. If they continue doing otherwise, maybe it is us who are wrong.

I do not have a real-world example ready, but think this will devalue quoting in many cases.
In the case of “totaly useless” quoting, the fact must be “totaly obvious”, too. Most of us should “totally agree” with your outspoken criticism, in these cases. This should, though, not occur so often, I venture...

VETO!
Even if the entire thread or entire post is available to us, the responses may address single arguments, single facts or just observations which cannot be related to just a few words in the original posting, be it by the nature of the posting, be it, because the person who responds cannot find a better way. Cutting a whole posting into pieces, like I do here, and focusing on each declaration, is however also a sign of politeness. Like in: “See, I am not just cross-reading and making a rough gesture of approval or disapproval”.

Not necessarily so. But, as I said, I do not have a good example ready, right now.

1 members found this post helpful.

While I understand why jefro is asking, I agree with most others in that: it's not a good idea to "limit" quotes. I say this for the same reasons outlined above. I myself try to quote the full quote if I'm the first to reply, so that if the OP deletes their posts after others have replied to their question, at least future readers know what the question was to begin with. I do agree with and try to not to quote the full post if others have already answered and quoted the OP themselves and/or if the OP is just way too long to fully quote.

An example of where something was luckily quoted before the OP was deleted: https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...6/#post5695867

And there are some morons that edit/delete their posts so sometimes the quoted version is the only way to see what the original question was.

Personally I'd love it if people couldn't edit / delete their posts after a specific time, or if there was a reply.

1 members found this post helpful.

I think it's already the case that you can't edit posts after 5 days. Which I'm not too happy about, since, like any fixed limit, it blocks legitimate uses as well.

If a users needsto post a correction after a period of time then put it in a new post in the thread. Or have the user "report" their own posts and ask a moderator to edit the correction.

i think i remember seeing a forum where full quoting was discouraged, i.e. if you fully quote a previous post without any changes to it, a dialog would ask if that was really necessary, and they maybe wanted to press Reply instead?

i must say i agree with the sentiment.

many people don't even notice the difference between "reply" and "quote": both buttons same color, same size, side-by-side (*) - maybe if one of them was larger and green and friendly, and the other smaller and menacingly red?

(*) oops, i just noticed that that isn't true - there's no reply button under the most recent post, the buttons that first catch the eye are "Report" and "Quote". that should be changed!

This was standard "netiquette" on USENET. You were supposed to edit the quotes down to the points you were actually replying to.

^ i still consider that netiquette.