just say "what did he say that was good?"

I never watch Tweety but find it amusing when he is discussed. He's a sort of comical figure.

That's how we get context and inform each other.

"Another Rachel bombshell tonight" is enough of a heading to give me an idea what the thread is about, AND (here is the critical factor):
The person posting did a good job of providing enough context after the subject heading that I knew what it was about, knew I wanted to go find it, and it was easy to find.

It really doesn't need to be a lot of info to accomplish that.

What I object to are the posts that say something like "Rachel dropped a bombshell" and you click on it, and ....nothing. No clue what the person is watching and not enough info that we could find it if we wanted to.

not doing much real journalism for so long that people just get excited and want to post quickly to let other others know to turn on their TV if they can...but they could go back and add info later if that is the case, so...what I said in the post. It really doesn't take a lot. Like this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028757647

Poster gave enough info that I had enough context to know what it was about, knew I wanted to go find it, and it was easy to find. It really doesn't need to be a lot of info to accomplish that:

ANOTHER RACHEL BOMBSHELL TONIGHT.

Potentially the biggest bombshell of them all.

Trump financially in cahoots with terrorists. A complicated story. Huge blackmail potential.

WATCH IT as soon as it is posted. Please.

And call/write MSNBC to request that NBC provide Rachel with security.

Update: The New Yorker reporter who investigated this mess? He needs protection too.

Tweety being on fire, but gave no details on what was said. So, it was a waste of my time to even follow the OP

We can only hope!

I don't watch television.

Our television plays commercial free movies. That's all it does.

I will look at the occasional YouTube video of John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, etc.., but I'd rather read stuff.

Bombastic blowhards opportunist, who interrupts his guests with machine-gun-like questions, who occasionally gets it right.

He's not a terrible guy, just frustrating.

+10,000

If I watch more than 5 minutes of cable news I contemplate suicide. The stupidity of it all.

Yet I understand some people are shut ins and need to spike their emotions...But, please.

(And going on Du serves the same purpose, so I am a hypocrite).

This. Thank you.

That's another of my pet peeves in online discussions, the use of esoteric acronyms that everyone is suppose to know.

*I Don't Know What You Are Talking About

Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off And Scaring The Cat.

Please be advised I'm going to shamelessly steal it. And a hearty welcome to DU!!!

I think this will give a lot of people a chuckle, but hey, I am not very smart. What does K&R mean? I know is has to be well known, but like I said... DUH!

Posting a response kicks the thread to the top of the read list. Recommend well, that's the button on the bottom left in the Orignal Post screen DURec

Being an old redneck C programmer, all I could imagine was Kernighan and Richie. Redneck is, of course, somewhat facetious. And somewhat true. I am a bumpkin, not a hater. Still, thanks!

threads...where do replies move it up?

Recommends just track it's 'popularity' and interest show by other DUers. But the main lists of OPs are sorted by time of last response as the default view. You can change your 'sort by' view by tapping on the column title...or at least that's my understanding.

Most of the time,information is on the net...I don't have MSNBC on or CNN all day...

If the look-at-me OP is so tingly that they just have to share, it's stupid to expect the readers to scour Google on the off chance that they find what the OP is talking about and, further, that they agree that the subject is so amazing that the OP couldn't possibly have bothered to post a link.

It's click-bait, pure and simple, and it's a shitty, inconsiderate tactic.

I have been blasted for posting this before. Threads that start with something like: "Boom, they just got nailed" are weak attempts to get hits for a post.
Please people, just post the subject in the - what's it called? - oh yeah, the Subject Line.

I would get excited if Comcast MSNBC would ever talk about net neutrality, and we all know why they don't. Its all still canned corporate propaganda.

and she will

You don't know how many times I see an OP with the subject "OMFG!"

I just ignore them.

You can pretty much grab the best of the comments there.

It's okay. Although only a 2 year member who largely monitors and learns, I have learned that we need not ALL be simultaneously on the edge of the precipice of late breaking news. I've followed countless cryptic or otherwise enigmatic grains of information posted in excitement and haste. That's my homework. I do not expect to be spoon fed either information, sources, or conclusions, and certainly do not impugn those who might offer scant information that tweaks my own interest. In such cases my interest must motivate and guide me to seek more information.

So post away. I have no problem in using my investigative impulses to follow leads to better inform myself. That's how I roll.

and great signature. Sounds like something Victor Hugo might have said.

follow. I am talking about threads that do not offer enough of a clue to provide a lead to follow. Some don't. A couple examples have been posted on this thread by others.

The frequency of "OMFG look at this Tweet!"
Followed with only a link to a tweet, yet no clue as to why I should want to click on it.

posts are the ones that I find just incredibly frustrating. But with you ...would far rather have a clue what the tweet is about rather than have to click on it to find out.

From cryptic posts to know what to search for.

The rest of us mere mortals are busy and/or on mobile, and need a sliver of information to know what to search for, and if it's worth it.

I hate that too.

If they'd only use it.

Sometimes I'm watching something by myself and would love to interact with others who are watching, like we sometimes do during debates and speeches.

post here and give shout outs to the highlights. Otherwise I'd miss loads of interesting, relevant stuff.

Please keep doing it, context or not.

as you say, THEY GIVE SHOUT OUTS TO THE HIGHLIGHTS. I am talking about posts where there ARE no highlights posted; NOTHING to give a clue what the poster is talking about.

See my reply #3 to post #2 above for an example of a post someone did who was watching Rachel and didn't give a lot of info but did a good job of providing enough
info that I:
1. had a general idea what the topic was.
2.Knew I wanted to search to find out more, and
3. could easily find it with an online search

It really doesn't take much to meet those criteria.

Considering how many times this plea has been made, we will see people follow through on it about the time Trump is actually charged with a crime. In other words, I will believe it when I see it.

(Sorry, not near my teevee at the moment. Could you summarize?)

you've gotten way more response than I ever did in asking for it, though. Thanks!

In the General Discussion forum, most threads have at least 300 views. Many have much more, but that would include multiple views as discussions progress. But let's assume 300 readers per Original Post and per most posts at the beginning of a thread as a lower bound on the number.

Dashing off quick OP with an opaque title and a sentence or two saves the writer time. Let's say it takes 30 seconds to do that. For comparison, let's say that a more informative title and several sentences summarizing key points and making a convincing case to view the video (live or YouTube) takes two minutes, 120 seconds for a little more typing and a little more thinking.

On the other side of the equation, a reader reading the better written OP can read it and decide whether to pursue it further within say 20 seconds. But dashed-off OP can easily take 60 seconds to puzzle out what it is referring to and then to glean from sparse clues enough information to decide to whether to pursue it.

However, to dramatize the case, let's suppose the difference in time is only 6 seconds instead of 40 seconds.

If there are 300 readers for every writer, dashing off an OP saves the writer 90 seconds and costs the readers 300 x 6 = 1800 seconds or half an hour.

On the other side of the ledger, if the writer spends an extra 90 seconds she/he saves readers half an hour of time.

Now, isn't it progressive and considerate to invest a mere 90 seconds to save the community a half hour?

Multiply that out by dozens of threads and it becomes easy to see that considerate writers make the community much more efficient.

[font size = "+1"]Who is the writer writing for anyway? Their own ego or the edification and enjoyment of 300 readers?[/font]

We're all about the greater good, right?

The half hour thing you have here is pretty convincing, but i'm guessing your 90 seconds for the OP is overstated and the number of seconds saved by the readers understated.

So, your case is a most generous example of why people should pay attention to the request in the OP. It saves a lot of other people a lot of time.

Seriously, you hit the nail on the head.

Convenience is indeed, the currency of the lazy mind.

I very seldom watch MSNBC or CNN, and I come to this site and see a blaring headline, and I mean blearing, and MOST of the time has very little context and no credible links associated with the story.

A well-meaning poster (I'm sure) posted a headline that scared me to death which appeared like there was something physically wrong with Ruth Bader Ginsburg (She is elderly and has had health issues on and off the last few years), when in reality there wasn't an issue with her health per what RBG was saying. The poster should have set up the headline saying "RBG says she's gonna hang in there as long as she possibly CAN etc...and give some context and credible links to RBG's statement on that day.

It's fine for folks to break stories--especially when they HAVE some context and and solid links to go WITH the story they've "broken."

Fill in these blanks and you start a thread with context for fellow DUers.

Stop it.

But, like you, I am frustrated by cryptic posts lacking context.

Although it has helped me several times by just reminding me that these shows exist. I don't have cable and rely on the internet to get most of my news, so I usually forget CNN, MSNBC, etc. even exist. Once I see a news story referenced on here, I can usually find it uploaded to YouTube pretty quickly, but I don't remember to check for new cable news content usually until someone reminds me of it.

with threads like "OMG! I can't believe what they're saying right now on xyz!" Please, folks, give us a few sentences worth anyhow. I don't have cable or a TV myself. I live in a remote rural area where the cost of getting a network provider to come out and install a hook-up is prohibitive. I make do with streaming the Internet instead. But while Rachel may be excited about getting late breaking news out to everybody else, she's not too concerned about those of us who don't have Comcast for one reason or another. People who post about late breaking news would really help the flow of information get to the rest of us if they'd just give a little additional info. Amaryllis is right on, and I thank in advance everyone who heeds her request!

but reluctant to ask, so you just shrug and turn around and leave.

Also getting tired of bombshells, the other shoe dropping, things on fire, this is IT, and then nothing happens.

The first posters usually ask or make jokes about the lack of context. Somebody eventually knows or the OP makes it more clear. It's amusing someone gets so excited about something like "wow Rachel just owned so and so!"

How can the reader tell from the subject line if the post contains something useful or is simply a worthless call-out to some blip that someone glimpsed on TV?

...which she did in fine fashion.

than a report of someone hearing something or feeling something.

Gotta get those "post numbers up" !! Sheesh.

It's a waste of time and it's weak.

...and put no information about it. I have TV, but I try to be considerate and post as much information as I can, even though I usually post on my phone.

It's just a courteous thing to do.

The OP writer may feel instant gratification but many of us are just annoyed.