PowerSwitch

I have noticed a trend where people posting just click the quote button to copy the whole of a post into theirs, where they add their reply. Next poster comes along and does the same thing. Many of the posts become more than a screenful, and the topic becomes difficult to read. Much of these quoted replies are not needed, and many are from the immediately preceding post.

All this increases the amount of data transacted when the topic is accessed. This costs power. What about more thought about how much gets copied? This would make topics easier to read, reduce the data moved, reduce the load on the servers, and save power. It is after all a professed concern of those who post on PS.

Guilty as charged. But not this time.

woodburner wrote:I have noticed a trend where people posting just click the quote button to copy the whole of a post into theirs, where they add their reply. Next poster comes along and does the same thing. Many of the posts become more than a screenful, and the topic becomes difficult to read. Much of these quoted replies are not needed, and many are from the immediately preceding post.

All this increases the amount of data transacted when the topic is accessed. This costs power. What about more thought about how much gets copied? This would make topics easier to read, reduce the data moved, reduce the load on the servers, and save power. It is after all a professed concern of those who post on PS.

I agree, if done to excess, then it is wasteful and pointless. However, it also has some merit in that it allows others to track easily back (without having to hunt down or simply guess) to the post or series of posts to which the current reply is responding. This allows for a certain continuity and fluidity of debate that is lost to some extent when quotes are not used.

I agree with Woodburner on this one and usually try to edit the quotes I use to what is relevant. I would urge others to do the same and not be lazy.

stevecook172001 wrote:

woodburner wrote:I have noticed a trend where people posting just click the quote button to copy the whole of a post into theirs, where they add their reply. Next poster comes along and does the same thing. Many of the posts become more than a screenful, and the topic becomes difficult to read. Much of these quoted replies are not needed, and many are from the immediately preceding post.

All this increases the amount of data transacted when the topic is accessed. This costs power. What about more thought about how much gets copied? This would make topics easier to read, reduce the data moved, reduce the load on the servers, and save power. It is after all a professed concern of those who post on PS.

I agree, if done to excess, then it is wasteful and pointless. However, it also has some merit in that it allows others to track easily back (without having to hunt down or simply guess) to the post or series of posts to which the current reply is responding. This allows for a certain continuity and fluidity of debate that is lost to some extent when quotes are not used.

I agree
If a hundred people read this page that's probably this equivalent to someone watching tv for a few seconds so I don't think I'm going to lose any sleep about the energy usage. And the extra time they have to spend scrolling down the page means they have less time to visit more websites!

Much of my posting is done from an iPad, and it is difficult to selectively highlight parts of a paragraph to quote from. Hence I do tend to use the "quote" button.

An alternative that I've used sometimes is to address the response to the poster, rather than quoting them (using the "@person" Twitter convention). This allows followers of the thread to see what the response refers to.

(Incidentally, an iPad uses somewhat less energy than a desktop machine.)

So in these few replies we have two examples of it, not withstanding it is poor etiquette and in many cases I suspect lazyness. (These two examples are probably a desperate attempt at being witty). I'm sure you won't be on Britain's Got Talent anytime soon.

I agree, if done to excess, .....

Words from the master......

Tarrel, your posts rarely if ever, come into the excessive quoting from what I've noted. It's not so much the power used by an individual's computer thats the problem, its the power hungry data centres which require enough cooling tio heat a small town.

Yes, I realise that, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.

At the risk of introducing "topic creep", I wonder if there is a broader issue here about "responsible internet usage" from an energy conservation viewpoint.

Avoiding transmission of excessive data is one factor. I wonder what other variables might have an impact on the energy-footprint of one's usage;
- ADSL vs. Cable vs. 3G?
- Time of day?
- Location of ISP?
- Obviously, nature and necessity of Internet usage (for example, is contributing to a discussion on a subject on PS a "worthier" use than posting pictures of last night's rave-up on Facebook?)

Any internet experts out there who could comment?

I dimly remember someone's done a "Carbon cost per Gigabyte" estimate, no idea where I'd find it, mind. However, things like gaming and streaming completely dwarf the amount of info passed around on this forum.

I try and quote selectively, otherwise I tend to forget what I'm writing about 1/2way through typing my response Perhaps there's too much CO_2 in my brain.

For anyone who's also on FB, there's currently a campaign to get various Internet superpowers to "unfriend Coal" and go greener.

Mobbsey recently posted the cost at 7kWh per gigabyte.

IMO the only green solution is to stop what were doing. Anything else is just pretending (and we all do it).

So, 20 Meg is roughly the same as boiling a kettle!

So, casually downloading a couple of mp3's has cost the same precious energy as could have been used to produCe a couple of litres of sterile drinking water, sterilise some medical instruments, have a decent hot wash, produce a clean, germ-free food preparation area, etc. etc.

Actually, I listen to internet radio A LOT. Mainly because our FM radio reception is rubbish. Maybe I need to install a roof aerial and go back to proper radio.

I guess a positive thing about internet energy use is that you can make a difference through your own behaviour, since the amount of data transmitted depends on your own usage.