Maximum Character Count

a reply to: DISRAELI

u2u'd

a reply to: ArMaP

u2u'd

a reply to: Lysergic

u2u'd

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: ArMaP
OK, we seem to be heading towards the conclusion that the 7413 limit is more specific to Word documents for some reason.

Not really, as I filled the text box with numbers and line breaks every 1000 characters, copied the text to word and got a character count of 7493. I had 7 line breaks.

I'm not sure you've hit the right reason, though. I can vouch for the fact that the difference is 87 characters, every single time- that is, my effective limit has never varied from 7413 for some years now.

Try doing what I did, write "1234567890" 750 times and see what happens.

originally posted by: ArMaP
Not really, as I filled the text box with numbers and line breaks every 1000 characters, copied the text to word and got a character count of 7493. I had 7 line breaks.

The question at issue is what happens when the copying is the other way round- that is, my documents start as Word documents and then get copied across to ATS text boxes. When things happen that way round, my experience is that the text gets cut off at the point which Word calls "7413 characters". The number of lines is variable, but always more than 100 (when the text gets that long).

|In your case, I see, the line breaks produced a difference of "7". That was my point. If the difference is 87 every single time, the cause has to be something which would produce that difference without variation.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Can you point me to the post you "quoted", so I can replicate what you did?

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: DISRAELI

Can you point me to the post you "quoted", so I can replicate what you did?

Certainly. The experiment was tried on this one;
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: DISRAELI

OK, I did what you did and got a character count in word of ... 7413.

After replacing the line breaks with a different character (I chose a @) I got 7500, as there was 87 line breaks in the text.

a reply to: ArMaP
Thank you for putting in so much work. I'm still mildly puzzled as to why the number of line breaks should be so consistent when the number of lines is larger and more variable, but I can't argue with science.

However, the practical advice I originally gave remains valid, under conditions. Anyone using Word and relying on their inbuilt character count needs to keep an eye on the 7413 figure, because taking the count up to 7500 will cause them to lose text from the end.

P.S. Perhaps you remember how the ATS editing box used to have an "available" character count of its own, counting down from 7500. Without that feature, the official ATS count is less relevant. I think I first noticed the apparent reduction to 7413 soon after that feature disappeared.

As for the older feature, when users with a larger number of posts were rewarded with a larger character allowance (I could not have done the Revelation threads without it), those days have obviously gone for ever.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I've been following this discussion. Thanks for sorting it out. Weird discrepancies. I am not working with MS Word but now I have an easy rough reference.

Why do think the "available characters" function fell by the wayside?

Thanks for all this input.

a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses
Perhaps because it slowed things down, or used up too much data space. A lot of tinkering went on in those days.

a reply to: DISRAELI

If I'm not mistaken the character counter was a Javascript function that, like all other Javascript functions, ran on the user's browser, so I doubt it slowed things down.

a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

Why do think the "available characters" function fell by the wayside?

It could have been part-frustration and part accepting the reality of modern social media. SkepticOverlord has always had high aspirations for the quality of threads on the site. That's partly why the character count was introduced and why the request to write good OPs was introduced to new thread windows. He'd like to see threads with several paragraphs, links and a cogent point or points.

In reality, long posts are skimmed nowadays and a lot of people draw conclusions from titles. Links are clicked by a few and ignored by most. Some people are incapable of communicating in paragraphs; it's not their nature. Others are incapable of reading a lengthy post because of education, time or just the modern Zeitgeist of skimming everything and swiping our screens.

Staff have the authority to delete threads that are too minimal and we do so most days. At the same time, like SO, we're realists and appreciate that forcing every thread to be literate and more than a paragraph could ultimately dissuade most members from writing threads. Abandoning the available word counter could have been a way of reducing complexity of the site. This makes sense if the function was no longer really used because people rarely get anywhere near to 7500 characters.

Yep, there are some of us who easily read and write long posts, but many more think five sentences is more than enough on any topic.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Nice of you to send this reply.

I came to ATS to participate in the short stories forum.

I'm the type who sometimes has trouble reigning in verbosity: even though I think all types of sentences are beautiful and useful, I particularly enjoy what Dr. Stanley Fish, in his book "How to Write a Sentence (And How to Read One)", labels the "coordinating" style, which demand a reader either pay attention or be left behind---a gambit to be carefully deployed before even considering limited attention spans, much less character counts. (This last sentence demonstrates the style; it may have a different name in academia.)

In a way, as toysforadults noted, the MCC is a blessing in disguise. I'm working a piece that will be presented over many threads (one chapter at a time). The limitation is honing my editing and revision skills like no other project I've done.

Content-contributors are up against a lot these days...

Merry Christmas to you.

a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

Nice of you to send this reply.

You're welcome.

I'm working a piece that will be presented over many threads (one chapter at a time). The limitation is honing my editing and revision skills like no other project I've done.

Content-contributors are up against a lot these days...

They are indeed. Good luck with your writing and Merry Christmas to you too.

a reply to: Kandinsky

I thought of a question I've been meaning to ask a mod. I will u2u shortly.