Is the summary really adding some value to a thread?

[jack action]

I must admit I don't see the added value of the OP summary in threads.

I really despite that it is automatically added when replying or quoting the OP. I always delete it.

But the summary of this thread really shows the little added value of a summary: It is, word for word, the entire post!

 

[DaveC426913]

It would be valuable if it were used correctly.

That thread should ideally have the summary as "I need to know the friction between a motor and a flywheel."

All PF can do is lead the horticulture*; they can't make her think.

*^{family-friendly}

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

It's supposed to be a TLDR for readers to get a quick idea of whether they may be interested in reading more.

 

[anorlunda]

It's supposed to be a TLDR for readers to get a quick idea of whether they may be interested in reading more.

But there is no tutorial instructing users on the proper use of the summary. Many times confused users include the entire body in the summary.

Worse, the quote facility copies the entire summary in every quote. It causes extra work to delete the unwanted copy of the summary.

I recall that at one time you said that you would limit the summary to 256 characters to discourage misuse.

But most important, it is the title that is supposed to clearly convey the idea. A second, more wordy, title is not a good idea. Sorry, but I think the entire summary idea is a loser.

 

[symbolipoint]

But there is no tutorial instructing users on the proper use of the summary. Many times confused users include the entire body in the summary.

Worse, the quote facility copies the entire summary in every quote. It causes extra work to delete the unwanted copy of the summary.

I recall that at one time you said that you would limit the summary to 256 characters to discourage misuse.

But most important, it is the title that is supposed to clearly convey the idea. A second, more wordy, title is not a good idea. Sorry, but I think the entire summary idea is a loser.

Hard to say; but member can choose what to do with the Summary, and then choose more detail in the body of the post. How exactly member uses the Summary section depends on his writing and expressive skills. Maybe as comparison, a formal report would have a Title, then an Abstract, and then the other parts of the report. (Not a perfect comparison, but what can be found in my head momentarily).

 

[symbolipoint]

It's supposed to be a TLDR for readers to get a quick idea of whether they may be interested in reading more.

The abbreviation known now makes the purpose for the Summary much clearer. LLLOOONNNGG post might or might not be interesting for some members. The summary could help member reader decide if the rest of the post would be uninteresting, or Too Long and soon to be "Did Not Read".

Maybe the abbreviation needs to be changed to TLDNR, for Too Long Did Not Read.

 

[jack action]

Isn't it better to NOT have a tool that MAY be helpful rather than have its users misuse it and make the experience cumbersome in most cases? It could help in theory but in practice it doesn't, whatever reason may be invoked.

 

[Nugatory]

Keeping the summary out of the reply would greatly improve the benefit:annoyance ratio, at least for me. It’s particularly annoying when I’ve selected the exact text I want by using the multiquote/reply pop up - I’ve gone out of my way not to pick up the summary yet it insists on coming along for the ride.

But on the other hand…. This is an annoyance not a serious problem, and if I’ve understood Greg properly it’s not easily fixed. It’s not very high on my wish list.

 

[symbolipoint]

The Summary field for post-starter are in the Astronomy And Cosmology, the Mathematics, and the Engineering forum sections.
The administrator probably had a very well-thought reason for the Summary field for the forums in those sections.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's supposed to be a TLDR for readers

Actually, changing the name from "Summary" to "TL;DR" might improve the user experience. No joke.

It tells the writer exactly what its purpose is.

 

[anorlunda]

Actually, changing the name from "Summary" to "TL;DR" might improve the user experience. No joke.

It tells the writer exactly what its purpose is.

Yes, or even "Abstract" I'm skeptical that acronyms are understandable by those to whom English is a 2nd language. (But surprise, TL;DR is in the Merriam Webster Dictionary.)

If you submitted a paper to a journal with an Abstract longer than the paper body, it would be rejected. But doing that here is not a violation of PF guidelines. So maybe, "Short Abstract" as the field label.

 

[apostolosdt]

Perhaps, when the “Summary” item was first introduced, it was to play the role of the abstract and thus offer a look of formality, as if it was a paper. But it doesn’t work well with posts, although it is essential with Insights.

Personally I’m not in favour of Summary, but it’s not a big issue either.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, or even "Abstract"

For me, that's uncommon terminology.

 

[anorlunda]

For me, that's uncommon terminology.

OK, if not Abstract, how about Subtitle? Below is an example from The Atlantic Magazine. The Subtitle is the part that starts with "The Burnout".

Teachers, Nurses, and Child-Care Workers Have Had Enough​

By Annie Lowrey|Sep. 27th, 2022​

The burnout crisis in pink-collar occupations puts everyone’s well-being at risk.

Even if PF users don't understand subtitle, they may be less likely to copy the entire body of the post into the subtitle field.

A subtitle, "Seeking recommendations for further study." would be perfect for the intended use of Summary.

 

[jack action]

Actually, changing the name from "Summary" to "TL;DR" might improve the user experience. No joke.

It tells the writer exactly what its purpose is.

summary: An abstract or a condensed presentation of the substance of a body of material.
tl;dr: Used to introduce a short summary of an overly long text.

How does someone who understands that TL;DR is supposed to introduce a short summary, but doesn't understand what a summary is, be helpful?

 

[DaveC426913]

Even if PF users don't understand subtitle, they may be less likely to copy the entire body of the post into the subtitle field.

A more direct way of discouraging this behavior would be to limit the size of the summary to, like, 140 characters or something. However, I suspect this won't stop members from posting things like "I have a question about maths."

summary: An abstract or a condensed presentation of the substance of a body of material.
tl;dr: Used to introduce a short summary of an overly long text.

How does someone who understands that TL;DR is supposed to introduce a short summary, but doesn't understand what a summary is, be helpful?

I know you're half-joking but I doubt users think in terms of definitions that way.

I suspect laypersons and students might see "Summary" and think there's some expected structure that they might not know (PF can be a bit formal and intimidating).

I suspect "Too long didn't read" - for all who understand it - translates directly into the extremely forgiving "just get your ask across in as few words as possible".

 

[berkeman]

Worse, the quote facility copies the entire summary in every quote. It causes extra work to delete the unwanted copy of the summary.

Indeed, that would appear to be a bug that would be good to fix, IMO.