When agreement adds no value to a discussion

[Mahiyammahi]

In my country’s education system, students who were very weak in English were sometimes given a kind of preset format in English 101 before final exams. These were basically template paragraphs. One format was for writing about the good side of society and another for the bad side. Students just had to replace the topic name and write a paragraph that agreed with or praised the subject. I remember seeing these formats back in high school.

Years later, that memory came back to me while reading some forum discussions. In a way, it feels a bit nostalgic. I often see replies that simply agree with the OP without adding any real value or constructive discussion. Comments like “yes it’s good,” “it’s useful,” or “it’s bad so we should avoid it,” filled with unnecessary words but no actual substance. Sometimes it even feels like the reply was written after reading only the title, not the full post.
I don’t mind if someone lacks deep knowledge on a topic. Everyone starts somewhere. But replying completely out of context makes a discussion harder to follow and lowers the overall quality of the thread.

So I’m curious, how do you usually deal with this?
Do you correct such replies, or is it better to simply ignore them?

At the very least, I feel a participant should understand the context of what they are discussing, even if they can’t contribute something highly technical yet.

Here's the Preset below , to have you the full picture of what I was trying to say.

[Hazink]

Comments like “yes it’s good,” “it’s useful,” or “it’s bad so we should avoid it,” filled with unnecessary words but no actual substance.

Maybe they add other things to the reply to either make the post reach the minimum of the post quota or to prevent not breaking the forum rules.

1. Such posts as "SELL SELL SELL", "I agree", "+1", "Support", "Watching", "Interesting", "LOL", "SCAM", "LEGIT", "FAKE", other one word posts, posts consisting mostly of swearing, quote pyramids, useless introduction threads, threads about a topic already recently discussed in several other threads.

Sometimes it even feels like the reply was written after reading only the title, not the full post.
I don’t mind if someone lacks deep knowledge on a topic. Everyone starts somewhere. But replying completely out of context makes a discussion harder to follow and lowers the overall quality of the thread.

That’s why we have report to moderator behind every reply.

So I’m curious, how do you usually deal with this?
Do you correct such replies, or is it better to simply ignore them?

You can try to quote who you notice doing that and call them to order, and if it continues, you can report the post, and if you can no longer condole it, then you will add the user to your ignored list.

[LoyceV]

Comments like “yes it’s good,” “it’s useful,” or “it’s bad so we should avoid it,” filled with unnecessary words but no actual substance.

This depends on who's saying it. If gmaxwell would post it, it holds a lot more value than when a random Newbie says the same thing.

Other than that: just report it as "insubstantial post".