1804: "Video Content"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
squall_line
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:36 am UTC

1804: "Video Content"

Postby squall_line » Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:06 pm UTC

Image

Title-text: "'So, like, sexy news videos?' 'No, people have tried that -- it's still just video content. We need to actually inform people THROUGH making out. I would call it 'Mouth Content,' but I think that's already the title of a Neil Cicierega album.'"

He actually only has "Mouth Sounds", "Mouth Silence", and "Mouth Moods" so far, but "Mouth Content" may already be in production?

RCT Bob
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:05 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby RCT Bob » Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:13 pm UTC

The comma being inside the quotation marks for 'Mouth Content' in the title text bothers me for some reason, I think the comma should be outside the quotation marks. Punctuation punctuality aside, I've never heard of Neil Cicierega, but I wouldn't mind it if news organisations started to experiment with this.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3375
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:28 pm UTC

(Reply to the point made in the 26-second ninjaed other thread, now deleted. Ah, now reproduced just here. Commiserations, Bob. Glad you came back to make your point, though. Makes the following that I've now written look that little less insane than it might have, ;))

The rules of punctuation regarding closing quotes seem to be consistent between the quoted text (double) and the quoted-within-quoted-text text (single).

I don't rigorously subscribe to this rule, myself, and the argument of how much the single-quote is speech-quote rather than "group these words together in a non-parenthetical way"-quote. But if I at some time say I shall call something "Delilah", then I can report that "Regarding a title, I said 'Delilah," when previously questioned," or some such guff.

What always used to get me, when I was younger and more excitable about this issue, is that the publication standards seemed to be (contrary to how I was taught!) to put quotations in single-quotes, quoted quotations in double-quotes, quoted quoted quotations back in single quotes. I personally theorised that it was an economy, of some kind, to require either less ink or less space for the outermost (and most frequent, if not only!) quotation delimiters, only progressing to doubled 66s and 99s when disambiguation was needed upon enteringnthe first meta-level... For all I know, it was an American (or not American?) thing like «»-quotes are used by some European countries, etc...

So, anyway, it may or may not be a justification for how it currently is, but I like that it's doubled at the top layer, single the next. Whether it's technically meta-quoted speech or otherwise... ;)

Plutarch
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:29 am UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby Plutarch » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:17 pm UTC

When I go to a news site to read a story, CNN for instance, and there's a video at the top, and the story written underneath, I always stop the video and read the text instead. I find the video slightly irritating. But I've no idea if my reaction is common, uncommon, or an age thing, or if there is any widespread preference.
Last edited by Plutarch on Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:18 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Aiwendil
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:53 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby Aiwendil » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:18 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
What always used to get me, when I was younger and more excitable about this issue, is that the publication standards seemed to be (contrary to how I was taught!) to put quotations in single-quotes, quoted quotations in double-quotes, quoted quoted quotations back in single quotes. I personally theorised that it was an economy, of some kind, to require either less ink or less space for the outermost (and most frequent, if not only!) quotation delimiters, only progressing to doubled 66s and 99s when disambiguation was needed upon enteringnthe first meta-level... For all I know, it was an American (or not American?) thing like «»-quotes are used by some European countries, etc...

So, anyway, it may or may not be a justification for how it currently is, but I like that it's doubled at the top layer, single the next. Whether it's technically meta-quoted speech or otherwise... ;)


I believe that using a double quote for the top layer is the American standard and using a single quote for the top layer is the British one. I (an American) was taught to use the double quote first, but I must say, it seems rather more reasonable to me nowadays to go single->double, rather than the other way around.

Plutarch wrote:When I go to a news site to read a story, CNN for instance, and there's a video at the top, and the story written underneath, I always stop the video and read the text instead. I find the video slightly irritating. But I've no idea my reaction is common, uncommon, or an age thing, or if there is any widespread preference.


I'm the same way. I'd MUCH rather read a news story than watch a video.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby SDK » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:26 pm UTC

Pretty sure that's the joke.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

gd1
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby gd1 » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:34 pm UTC

Aiwendil wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:
Plutarch wrote:When I go to a news site to read a story, CNN for instance, and there's a video at the top, and the story written underneath, I always stop the video and read the text instead. I find the video slightly irritating. But I've no idea my reaction is common, uncommon, or an age thing, or if there is any widespread preference.


I'm the same way. I'd MUCH rather read a news story than watch a video.


I just scroll down to the comment section.
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3375
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:26 pm UTC

Aiwendil wrote:I believe that using a double quote for the top layer is the American standard and using a single quote for the top layer is the British one. I (an American) was taught to use the double quote first, but I must say, it seems rather more reasonable to me nowadays to go single->double, rather than the other way around.


British, myself, and definitely told to use 66s and 99s in writing. I have no idea about UK publishing conventions (many books from the library were definitely American, with spellings such as "color", "aluminum" and "sulfur" being quite distracting, at that age (I even complained, once, that The Hunt For Red October was full of typos... Much later realising that it was Noah Webster's fault, not Tom Clancy's...).

Anyway, I got over that misplaced pedantry. Mostly.

(@gd1, you dislocated the quote-attributions. ;))

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2419
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:32 pm UTC

gd1 wrote:I just scroll down to the comment section.

Most of them used to offer a transcript below the video. I've noticed places not doing that recently, and it annoys the crap out of me. So yeah, I scroll down expecting content and get comments instead. While the ad autoplays at me.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
ElWanderer
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:05 pm UTC

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby ElWanderer » Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:53 pm UTC

RCT Bob wrote:The comma being inside the quotation marks for 'Mouth Content' in the title text bothers me for some reason, I think the comma should be outside the quotation marks.

I was going to suggest the position of the comma inside or outside of the quote was a US style v British style thing, but it seems to be more complicated than that: https://www.theguardian.com/media/mind- ... quotations

I would put the comma outside the quotation marks in this situation. It looks weird to me to have it inside.
Now I am become Geoff, the destroyer of worlds

BrianK
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 1:15 pm UTC

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby BrianK » Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:13 pm UTC

If they want to start feeding us information via our tongues, we're going to need one of these:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... h-tongues/

User avatar
measure
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:31 pm UTC
Location: Time-traveling kayak

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby measure » Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:35 pm UTC

Plutarch wrote:When I go to a news site to read a story, CNN for instance, and there's a video at the top, and the story written underneath, I always stop the video and read the text instead. I find the video slightly irritating. But I've no idea if my reaction is common, uncommon, or an age thing, or if there is any widespread preference.

Agreed. It's much easier to skim text (esp. if it's not formatted so as to require excessive scrolling) for relavent info than it is to wait through a (usually low-content) video or skip around trying to get the basic points without missing anything important.

See also: 1264

rmsgrey
Posts: 3378
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:37 pm UTC

Plutarch wrote:When I go to a news site to read a story, CNN for instance, and there's a video at the top, and the story written underneath, I always stop the video and read the text instead. I find the video slightly irritating. But I've no idea if my reaction is common, uncommon, or an age thing, or if there is any widespread preference.


I find I assimilate text faster than video for most information. Some, of course, is best conveyed as video, but, when it's just someone reading a script, while there's a lot more information in the video-stream, knowing the reader's opinion of the script's content isn't exactly useful (to say nothing of the vast amounts of information about their movements, gestures, breathing, fashion sense, etc...) unless they made a big contribution to writing it...

User avatar
Heimhenge
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 11:35 pm UTC

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby Heimhenge » Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:39 pm UTC

Plutarch wrote:When I go to a news site to read a story, CNN for instance, and there's a video at the top, and the story written underneath, I always stop the video and read the text instead. I find the video slightly irritating. But I've no idea if my reaction is common, uncommon, or an age thing, or if there is any widespread preference.


Same here man. When I browse the morning news online I mute my speakers and scroll past the video. Annoys the hell outa me that I can't pause the ads but I least I can scroll them away. I prefer to read my news (such as it is) and not have it "interpreted" for me by some talking head. Well ... Ananova was kinda cute ... while she lasted.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3375
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:15 pm UTC

I tend to listen to audio (podcasts, pre-recorded DAB, iPlayer radio) whilst doing other things. For example, I'm currently listening to a radio comedy as I type this1. Through earphones if I'm out and about. And if I'm browsing as well as listening, it is really annoying if a web-page that doesn't even seem to make its own sounds has 'silent media' adverts take over the audio and stop whatever it is that I'm listening to.

(It doesn't shut off playback audio when I'm getting game sounds, but game sounds are always set to a volume (per global volume settings) far greater than the playback of the largely spoken-word deferred broadcasts (affected by the same volume adjustment, thus always as drowned out - except with a few rare games where game music and effects have their own sliders, instead of just toggles). It's far easier at home, when I'm listening from different devices/machines. Listening to worn-cockeyed headphones from one source in one ear, a separate single earphone from another and the background noise from a device speaker leaking through whilst I'm reading/writing a forum on-screen isn't so unusual, but it is impractical most of the time.)

1 "Raise your riot shields! Altogether now, let's go!" <sound of sirens and breaking glass>

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2419
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:00 pm UTC

measure wrote:Agreed. It's much easier to skim text (esp. if it's not formatted so as to require excessive scrolling) for relavent info than it is to wait through a (usually low-content) video or skip around trying to get the basic points without missing anything important.

Yeah, the whole interaction mode is exactly wrong for news. I mean, sure, we've been in a hypertext world for 30 years and modes of interaction with documents have shifted toward things you navigate as much as read. But newspapers invented the hard lead and the presentation page of skimmable snippets that link to further content, like, 150 years ago, because that's how news works as a form of content. The idea that I opened a news story to have someone read it to me, and not to skim over for the gist to see whether or not I actually want more information about it....
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

gimmespamnow
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:35 am UTC

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby gimmespamnow » Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:12 pm UTC

I sat in on a meeting* where the presenters were some blind people using my company's software with a screen reader. Compared to normal talking, the screen reader was like 10 times faster: they'd press the Alt key and the screen reader would say "File Edit View..." as fast as sighted people could skim the menu names, and then they'd press the down arrow and they'd hear "New Open Save Save As..." Sure, the voice took some getting used to, but in terms of information density the screen reader was an amazing thing. (If it wasn't for the fact that good screen reading software is expensive, I'd buy it and use it at home.)

Most video news (including pre-internet TV news,) is really just video of people reading a teleprompter. They just suck, and they sucked in the 80s too: they are inefficient from my time management, (in fact TV news often reads slower than radio news,) and it is horrible from the bandwidth the consume. If you want to put aerial video of the Oroville Dam's spillway on the screen and have the guy narrate, I'll watch that in a heart beat, (especially if you put a title on the page that says "Video of Oroville Main spillway repairs".) But when I click a link and don't expect a video and then I get a video of a guy slowly reading the same text that is on the page, I'm not impressed and I'll avoid the site in the future. I like YouTube, but the videos I watch on YouTube aren't talking heads: one of my favorite sources of videos is the landslide blog, which has videos of landslides, (along with technical details on how exactly they happened and how to prevent them.) http://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/

*The moral of the story is that with a screen reader a non-expect blind person can use out software almost as fast as I'd expect a non-expert sighted person to use it. Although there were some trouble spots, which is why I watched this demonstration, (for instance, simple graphs are easy with a screen reader, but interesting graphs are hard...)

Mikeski
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby Mikeski » Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:18 am UTC

Most people talk faster than they can type (or write).

Most people read faster than they can listen.

Podcasts/video/etc. which are delivering information that does not require the video component, then, have authors who feel "my time is more valuable than yours." (Or, assuming multitasking by the listener, "this information is about as important as Muzak.")

Blogs/written articles/etc. are saying "your time is more valuable than mine." (And "I feel this information is actually worth your undivided attention.")

I adjust my consumption appropriately.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3378
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:47 am UTC

Mikeski wrote:Most people talk faster than they can type (or write).

Most people read faster than they can listen.

Podcasts/video/etc. which are delivering information that does not require the video component, then, have authors who feel "my time is more valuable than yours." (Or, assuming multitasking by the listener, "this information is about as important as Muzak.")

Blogs/written articles/etc. are saying "your time is more valuable than mine." (And "I feel this information is actually worth your undivided attention.")

I adjust my consumption appropriately.


Ironically, unless the podcast/video/whatever is both unscripted and unedited, it probably took more time and effort to produce than the equivalent blog/written article would have. Don't get me wrong: there are plenty of people who do just turn on their webcam and ramble for 5-15 minutes then upload to YouTube, but there are also a lot who produce the equivalent of a written article, then read it out, or ramble for a while and then edit it down and add some special effects.

Video forces the consumer to absorb the information on the producer's terms (okay, you can twerk things slightly by jumping around) while a page of text lets you jump back and forth, repeat sections easily, and scan (or search) for keywords, so there is still a weighting in favour of the producer's judgement/opinion or of the consumer's judgement/opinion, and that degree of consideration is worth considering.

RCT Bob
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:05 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby RCT Bob » Tue Feb 28, 2017 7:45 am UTC

There's also some parts of information that can be conveyed much faster through podcasts or video formats. In a written format, there's no tonal shift, no emphasis on certain parts of sentences apart from writing parts in italics, boldfaced, or rudely in CAPS. When it is about conveying dry factual information, written formats are great. It's why we still have scientific papers. When it is about conveying an opinion or something that carries something subjective, audio definitely adds something.

Soupspoon wrote:(Reply to the point made in the 26-second ninjaed other thread, now deleted. Ah, now reproduced just here. Commiserations, Bob. Glad you came back to make your point, though. Makes the following that I've now written look that little less insane than it might have, ;))

Yeah, I think this thread was the first, so I deleted the one I made to avoid a duplicate.

Soupspoon wrote:The rules of punctuation regarding closing quotes seem to be consistent between the quoted text (double) and the quoted-within-quoted-text text (single).

I don't rigorously subscribe to this rule, myself, and the argument of how much the single-quote is speech-quote rather than "group these words together in a non-parenthetical way"-quote. But if I at some time say I shall call something "Delilah", then I can report that "Regarding a title, I said 'Delilah," when previously questioned," or some such guff.

What always used to get me, when I was younger and more excitable about this issue, is that the publication standards seemed to be (contrary to how I was taught!) to put quotations in single-quotes, quoted quotations in double-quotes, quoted quoted quotations back in single quotes. I personally theorised that it was an economy, of some kind, to require either less ink or less space for the outermost (and most frequent, if not only!) quotation delimiters, only progressing to doubled 66s and 99s when disambiguation was needed upon enteringnthe first meta-level... For all I know, it was an American (or not American?) thing like «»-quotes are used by some European countries, etc...

So, anyway, it may or may not be a justification for how it currently is, but I like that it's doubled at the top layer, single the next. Whether it's technically meta-quoted speech or otherwise... ;)


To me, it's about whether the punctuation is part of the quoted part or part of the surrounding sentence. In this case, I feel like the title 'Mouth Content' does not need a comma to complete that title, but the comma does add something to the surrounding sentence, so it should be outside the quotation marks.

Hmm, I never knew there was a difference between British and American quotation standards between the double marks and the single marks. After a bit of googling I guess you're right, the British usually use single quotation marks and the Americans doubles. Now I feel bad. I've been writing some fanfiction in UK English, already over 60,000 words, and never realised that so used the doubles everywhere. Obviously nobody outside of xkcd forums actually cares, but now it bothers me and I'll have to replace them all in the entire story.

User avatar
Wee Red Bird
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:50 am UTC
Location: In a tree

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby Wee Red Bird » Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:18 am UTC

I prefer written to video, though if you read some of a certain leader's transcripts, they are even more unintelligible than the video.
It makes it easier to catch up on information while at work, without having to pull out my headphones and listen to it.

And it isn't just news that is better in text with the odd picture. Take videos on how to replace a widget in your car.
The video is usually 20 minutes long. They have a fancy intro they have been playing about with. They then yap on about how much experience they have in replacing such items, show off their tool kit, list the items you need for the job, talk about where you can buy them (I already have a good set of tools and have the part in my hand, not that I could buy it from the same shop as they are in another country, but I digress.)
Then comes the moment you've been waiting for, but it isn't there yet. They take down all the bits that are in the way of accessing the component. Bits you have worked out yourself because you aren't stupid. Then finally they get down to the item. Although, they have a bad camera angle as they are both filming it and working on it at the same time. You have to rewind that 20 second segment over and over till you work out what they are actually doing.
Then you go out and do the job, put everything else back together and go back into the house to wash up. And on your PC is the same idiot talking about the other videos he has in their series and how to subscribe to his channel because he doesn't know when to stop talking.

Where as, if you can find someone who has taken a series of pictures and written down a description, you can see clearly what you need to do, where the hidden clips are, etc.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3375
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:45 am UTC

RCT Bob wrote:Hmm, I never knew there was a difference between British and American quotation standards between the double marks and the single marks. After a bit of googling I guess you're right, the British usually use single quotation marks and the Americans doubles. Now I feel bad. I've been writing some fanfiction in UK English, already over 60,000 words, and never realised that so used the doubles everywhere. Obviously nobody outside of xkcd forums actually cares, but now it bothers me and I'll have to replace them all in the entire story.
As the officially (if erroneously1) designated British pedant, I would prefer double-quotes in the primary layer of quotation... Primary-layer single-quotes I tend to reserve for 'example' quoting (that don't require internal punctuation), and I've also practically dropped the requirement for penultimate punctuation "where not a stop/question/exclamation, but at most a comma" is in effect. Unless I say "something clausal, or otherwise potentially confusingly aside-like," where that comma is required for gap-pause and goes inside. There is a case where "some text", for example, takes an outside comma, but that's probably a situation where I really should have single-quoted or found a better contrived example... Once I start to meta-quote, I should toggle back and forth (for true quotes) for nesting purposes. If I need to put an 'example' word in a two-deep meta-quote where confusion may exist, then I'd rather re-write (maybe to italicise, one way or /another/, according to platform; but context is all) if given the flexibility to do so. I also dislike using single-quotes around apostrophised words ('it's', as opposed to 'its'), for obvious reasons, so may bend my rules;2 or I may not.

Which means that my system (created in the crucible of the '70s educational system, mostly, but retooled by pre-web Internet messaging once a decade or two had elapsed) is really not matching any official UK or US stylesheet practice, but as none of them that exist seem to match any of their own compatriots in national representation, half the time, I declare it as my own standard (moreover for me to break when I will) and your UK English fanfiction is not going to suffer from this. Only really by spelling. (Just try to realise "-ise" suffixes wherever possible, as part of your colourful spelling regime, and don't say "aluminum sulfide", but "aluminium sulphide" instead... :mrgreen: Did I just break my own rules or not, I wonder?)


1 It's not an error that I have been so designated, just that I've been proven to err before on translacunan linguistic issues, despite having very definite opinions... ;)

2 And my semi-colon use is iffy (outside of "here's a list of lists: Pip, Squeak and Wilfred; Wilson, Kepple and Betty; Galton and Simson; Marks & Spencer"), probably!

speising
Posts: 2252
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby speising » Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:09 am UTC

Then there's the custom, i don't know whether British, American or generally English writing, to start every paragraph in a multi paragraph quote with quotation marks, but only closing the last of them, which is just as bad as unbalanced parentheses.

ps.02
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby ps.02 » Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:17 am UTC

speising wrote:Then there's the custom, i don't know whether British, American or generally English writing, to start every paragraph in a multi paragraph quote with quotation marks, but only closing the last of them, which is just as bad as unbalanced parentheses.

Funny you should mention parentheses, exactly the same rule exists for parentheses as well.

(I too am not sure whether these conventions are American or British or both.)

Are you the sort of person who might end a statement with an unbalanced tag such as </sarcasm>? Does that one bother you as much as the others?

RCT Bob
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:05 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby RCT Bob » Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:22 am UTC

I already replaced parts of it by single quotation marks now. I'm not going back, even if only because changing it from single to double is a lot more annoying than from double to single, due to find-and-replace not working for the single-to-double transition (also capturing all the don'ts, isn'ts, possessive names, etc.)
Last edited by RCT Bob on Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:23 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

speising
Posts: 2252
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby speising » Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:22 am UTC

ps.02 wrote:
speising wrote:Then there's the custom, i don't know whether British, American or generally English writing, to start every paragraph in a multi paragraph quote with quotation marks, but only closing the last of them, which is just as bad as unbalanced parentheses.

Funny you should mention parentheses, exactly the same rule exists for parentheses as well.

(I too am not sure whether these conventions are American or British or both.)

Are you the sort of person who might end a statement with an unbalanced tag such as </sarcasm>? Does that one bother you as much as the others?

That one bothers me even more. It implies that the reader is too stupid to recognize sarcasm on their own. Or that the writer isn't able to express sarcasm without crutches.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3375
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:38 am UTC

Definitely part of my Traditional British schooled version, that.

My teacher may well have said, "You are to assume that unclosed quotes at the end of a paragraph run on. But the start of the next paragraph needs opening quotes, to identify it as properly indented. If you close and open quotes, such as if Bill says, 'Flob a lob a lob, ' and Ben says, 'Flobble lobble lobble,' it looks like an alternating conversation.

"But by indicating a run-over, you know that it is the same person still talking. As awkward as multi-paragraph dialogue might be. Oh, and indentation is also useful.

"As long as you aren't using some hobbled future system that, as a subset of the full capabilities of a properly-established style-sheet that is capable of firstline and non-firstline hanging indentation definition, only slavishly reverts to the 'whitespace is compressed' default. Because then you may have to compromise. Just don't forget to close your quotes where you need to close."

"Bollocks, that's just another meta-example from my future self," I may well have responded.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2901
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby orthogon » Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:00 am UTC

speising wrote:Then there's the custom, i don't know whether British, American or generally English writing, to start every paragraph in a multi paragraph quote with quotation marks, but only closing the last of them, which is just as bad as unbalanced parentheses.


I'd go as far as to say that I like that convention and was delighted recently to get the chance to use it.

I reckon it's actually closely related to the single/double quotes thing. Basically human beings don't process syntax using an infinite stack/pushdown automaton like computers do; instead we are thought to have a single storage location for each type of structure. So we can't actually manage one structure nested inside another structure of the same type. That's why we can see at an intellectual level that the "buffalo buffalo..." sentences are in some sense syntactically correct and yet our innate language circuitry throws an error. Similarly we can't simply keep count of the layers of nested quotes (or parentheses) and prefer to use typographically distinct symbols: hence single-quotes within double-quotes. Because we're not really pairing up quotes, we don't mind seeing a load of opening double quotes and a single closing quote - as far as we're concerned the closing double-quote closes the double-quoted passage, however many times it was apparently opened. And on the other hand we're very likely to forget that we're "in" a double-quoted passage at all, so having a reminder at the start of a paragraph is helpful.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

speising
Posts: 2252
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby speising » Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:07 am UTC

orthogon wrote:we're very likely to forget that we're "in" a double-quoted passage at all


Never. Isn't your head voice talking with a different voice while in a direct speech?

RCT Bob
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:05 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby RCT Bob » Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:18 am UTC

speising wrote:
orthogon wrote:we're very likely to forget that we're "in" a double-quoted passage at all


Never. Isn't your head voice talking with a different voice while in a direct speech?


My head doesn't have a voice. Am I weird for that reason?

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3375
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:28 am UTC

Example text:
A vicar and an elderly lady parishioner are looking up at their church spire.

"This storm damage will need a lot of money to repair," said the parishioner.

"The existing roof-improvement fund is far behind the original target," commented the vicar, ruefully.

"Bur don't we have a contingency fund for damage repair?"

"Of course! The insurance will pay out for this, and we can probably wangle them to plug some of the old leaks as well."

Who (in both cases possibly out of character) said the bit with the word 'wangle' in it? Which inner voice (for those that have them!) do you start to use? Would it have changed with an quote-unclosed question, the line above?

speising
Posts: 2252
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby speising » Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:37 am UTC

Soupspoon wrote:Example text:
A vicar and an elderly lady parishioner are looking up at their church spire.

"This storm damage will need a lot of money to repair," said the parishioner.

"The existing roof-improvement fund is far behind the original target," commented the vicar, ruefully.

"Bur don't we have a contingency fund for damage repair?"

"Of course! The insurance will pay out for this, and we can probably wangle them to plug some of the old leaks as well."

Who (in both cases possibly out of character) said the bit with the word 'wangle' in it? Which inner voice (for those that have them!) do you start to use? Would it have changed with an quote-unclosed question, the line above?


Well, that are obviously alternating speakers, but why the need for opening quotes within an ongoing speech?

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3375
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:57 am UTC

speising wrote:
Well, that are obviously alternating speakers, but why the need for opening quotes within an ongoing speech?


For a number of reasons,
"Bur [sic] don't we have a contingency fund for damage repair?

Of course! The insurance will pay out for this, and we can probably wangle them to plug some of the old leaks as well."

...wouldn't satisfy my primary school teachers.

Whilst...
"But don't we have a contingency fund for damage repair?

"Of course! The insurance will pay out for this, and we can probably wangle them to plug some of the old leaks as well."

...would indicate that it is a run-on from the same speaker, and still her speech.

I didn't make those rules. I probably try to avoid (needing) them and do something different.

I suppose when it comes to extensive 'descriptionless' two-way dialogue, I'd these days prefer uniquely indented text, perhaps hyphen-bulleted (per change of voice) and/or italicised to differentiate further from my own level of author's voice (without quotation marks during the whole descriptionless passage) and doing everything to avoid multi-paragraphs with the same voice (or third, fourth, etc voices jumping in, without enough blatant dialogue clues to make it obvious enough where in the mob this newest line is coming from). It'd be tricky.

A publisher/editor might have their own ideas, and I might (or might not) decide to go with their 'suggestions'.

Native
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:52 pm UTC

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby Native » Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:49 am UTC

SpaceX to fly two tourists around the moon. Kiss at 11.
Image

User avatar
balthasar_s
Posts: 2234
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:20 pm UTC
Location: secret base on the Moon
Contact:

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby balthasar_s » Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:37 pm UTC

gd1 wrote:I just scroll down to the comment section.
Wait until they invent video comments...
BFTF replay
Good luck, my blitzing friends!
BTTBAA:1023 # Mustard? Use the mirror! Blitzing? Also use the mirror! And here's why. # OTT facebug copy
that's a robot so it doesn't countImage
This text was autogenerated:
swimming unit detector active

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4861
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby HES » Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:41 pm UTC

balthasar_s wrote:
gd1 wrote:I just scroll down to the comment section.
Wait until they invent video comments...

Didn't youtube have "video responses" back in the day?
He/Him/His Image

DavidSh
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:09 pm UTC

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby DavidSh » Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:50 pm UTC

Native wrote:SpaceX to fly two tourists around the moon. Kiss at 11.

It may help to explain that that image was of two robots exchanging information, as imagined by Hitoshi Ashinano in Yokohama Kaidashi Kikō.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2419
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby Copper Bezel » Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:25 pm UTC

It's sweet though.

HES wrote:
balthasar_s wrote:
gd1 wrote:I just scroll down to the comment section.
Wait until they invent video comments...

Didn't youtube have "video responses" back in the day?

Still do, but I'm not sure what it does, beyond marking / linking the response video as a response to the original and I think letting the recommendation selection dealie in the original video know that the response is a related video.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

rmsgrey
Posts: 3378
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:56 pm UTC

RCT Bob wrote:There's also some parts of information that can be conveyed much faster through podcasts or video formats. In a written format, there's no tonal shift, no emphasis on certain parts of sentences apart from writing parts in italics, boldfaced, or rudely in CAPS. When it is about conveying dry factual information, written formats are great. It's why we still have scientific papers. When it is about conveying an opinion or something that carries something subjective, audio definitely adds something.


Nah, mate. You can definitely get tone across just fine just by being a bit more choosy with your word choices, innit?

Exactly. You can convey much information about intonation, etc, purely by careful selection of phrasing and judicious application of a broad vocabulary.

In speech, inflection and pacing help convey nuances directly, because the focus in speech is in fluid delivery rather than in getting exactly the right phrasing to convey your precise meaning. In text, you lack that additional information, but you can phrase and rephrase things to convey the intended understanding more readily and precisely. Also, provided the text says what you want to say, the reader can always go back and reread as needed until they get it; listening to speech, the listener has to rely on their first impression of what was said/intended.

McBee
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:01 am UTC

Re: 1804: "Video Content"

Postby McBee » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:33 am UTC

Restart the oral tradition in newstelling.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests