Ok, now I find this rather annoying because you can't simply answer gimp or nmap or startx. As well, you can't just paste a quote because of this limit. If you're worried about spam, make it so that only people having < 200 posts should worry about entering 10 chars.

I would make any such references a link, always going to be over 10 chars long
http://www.gimp.org
http://insecure.org/nmap/
http://www.xfree86.org/4.0.1/startx.1.html
and as spam usualy has a link or ten they are not affected by this filter, I think it is to stop accidental submissions

I thought the same way for a while, but I noticed that it increased the quality of my posts.

i.e.
Q: Will there ever be a binary API for the linux kernel.

A: No!

But that's too short - so I have to add something. Another 7 exclamation points will do the trick - or a short explanation, like:

A: No. That would be dumb!

OR

A: No. It is neither needed nor consistent with the GPL.

You may want to think about the impact of your answers if you are using less that 10 characters.

+1
.
.
d'oh . . .

While most of the other replies are funny (esp the "rolleyes" thing) I think this is the right mindset IMHO.
If you find you often need less than 10 chars to reply I'd agree the problem isn't with the char thresh.

Note that none of the respondents (so far) are new - nor with an insignificant post count.

Especially considering the really long-lived respondents no doubt remember a time when there was no character limit.

I have noticed that the more arbitrary sounding rules here are actually very sound and based in a verifiable problem. It is also good that they get questioned periodically like this... it makes sure they are (a)still relevant and (b)understood.

Sometimes one does get changed - like the one about how many posts before you can post a link.

Hmmm... the limit also discourages a simple RTFM - so I guess it's more newbie friendly too.

To be honest, I don't think I remember when there wasn't a character limit. 10 characters, while seemingly arbitrary, was chosen in part because it would avoid answers like "no" or "gimp". Those answers really aren't in the spirit of LQ, are they? While I'm sure there are a very small number of times a legitimate response is under 10, with a member already admitting the limit improved the quality of his responses, would LQ as a whole be improved if we changed or lowered the limit?

--jeremy

I don't agree.

E.g:
Such answer is not valid so I need to write smth similar to this:

Inkscape! It rocks!

Another example:
Neither "It rocks", nor on what java is based is interesting for OP!


Of course, there are hackish ways to bypass this limit: like 10 spaces and . at the end (spaces are considered as chars then) but I just suggested to remove the limit when having some predefined post count.


Another thing is that if my post only consists from a quote, forum doesn't count its chars.

You are correct. They also do not improve the quality of the post, which is where you missed the whole point of the character limit.

Cheers

If you're only going to answer no or gimp or something shorter than 10 characters, you might as well just tell them to "go google it" which is exactly 10 characters. But I'd suggest not doing that..

You can also supply more information:

Q: Which tool is great for vector graphics?
A: Inkscape.

See? This provides useful information in addition to answering the exact question asked. You could elaborate further by explaining why you think Inkscape is "great". That can be important because what is great for you may not fit the bill for OP. If they understand your reasoning, they can make a more informed choice... after all, some people may prefer sk1 or Xara.

The full reply may go like this:

Now do you understand how to make your posts more meaningful?

Similarly with:

Q: Which language is good for OO programming?
... assuming, by "OO", you mean "object oriented": while it has been fashionable to learn OO techniques using Sun Java, there are a range of languages which support them. The most common one in the GNU/Linux world is C++ with the (GPL'd) GNU compiler collection.

... here we take the opportunity to do a bit of important education about GNU/Linux as well as free vs non-free software, without getting too preachy.

Note: there is always something else the poster needs to know besides the literal answer to the question.

Java is free.

Min char limit when quoting somebody is not required, but it exists.

Post quality still depends on the responder, because 11 chars don't make more sense than 10 either. This limit doesn't improve post quality because string consisting of 11 characters is too short to include full sentence.


E.G.
This response is not only non-helpful, but even confusing.

I didn't say it wasn't not even a smidgeon of an implication in there.

But you seem to be saying that I did not make this clear in my post... notice that this discussion would not have happened had I stuck to the one-word answer previously suggested. Making a longer reply has thus enriched the thread beyond a simple Q&A... in this way, a community gets stronger.

You mean, the content between quote tags doesn't count towards the character limit? A reply that is all quote is unlikely to be adding anything new to the thread. How is the stipulation a disadvantage?Having decided on using a character limit as a means (tried and tested) to improve overall post quality, one is then faced with setting the actual limit. 100 characters guarantees decent size paragraphs at the expense of discouraging elegant solutions (and any answer really). 4 characters allows "RTFM". The exact number which balances encouragement with inconvenience in unique to the individual... so some kind of median is attempted.You are not restricted to 10 characters... so there is no need for an intelligible sentence to fit in there. Conversely, it is possible to write complete meaningless dribble for thousands of characters (see MSOOXML specs).

The 10 character limit is a small price to pay for getting people to think about their posts. The fact you are replying here demonstrates that this part is successful.

It has nowhere been asserted that the character limit makes it impossible to construct unhelpful and/or confusing replies. It is asserted that it encourages people to think about the reply they have written when it is a brief one. People who want to be creative and helpful will find creative and helpful ways to extend the post. They will benifit from the "heads up" effect.

The rest, we don't care about. Lets face it, we want to discourage people who are not interested in being creative and helpful. We want to encourage users to think about what they write.

I agree that post length is a poor way to judge post quality. Perhaps you can come up with an alternative?