WOMBAT (was: Four days of good posting)/long posts

[Goddlefrood]

> Ann:

> Also, I've just written a pair of posts, both of which I marked 
> as long.  They were each about 1,000 words. On the other hand, 
> Katie's recent Mesage 170717 on HP memories is marked "fairly 
> long", and it's only 450-odd words, and Elkins' Message 34802 
> is not tagged long and clocks in at just under 4,000 words.

> So my question is: given that there's no specific rule on long 
> posts, comparable with the one-line rule, how long do other 
> listies think "long" is? (For reference: 1,000 words is roughly 
> equal to 3 or 4 pages of a book or 1 1/2 typed A4 pages.)

Goddlefrood:

Until quite recently I never marked posts at all. My longest 
clocked in at about 10,000 words. That one I did put "Quite 
long, even for me" on, so I'm learning to appreciate what 
others think is long.

There's nothing set in stone about this, though. What some might 
think long others may feel is short. Some time back I had posted 
an essay on another site that was about 6,000 words. One of the 
responses said that was not long at all.

That seems to suggest it's rather subjective. Some of my posts 
are less than 1000 words but probably not too many. None of them 
had long appended to them. Most of the list knows who the wind 
bags are anyway and I tend to think many believe I'm one of 
them. I would agree on the whole, but I do go into some depth 
on things at times in my defence.

One last thing, I sent an e-mail to a fellow fan that said 
basically you are wrong about something to do with the 
witenagemot to wizengamot that ran to quite a few words. 
It convinced her though so my efforts were not wasted.

Toodle Pip

Goddlefrood