I have been moderately rebuked twice now for starting threads that have already been discussed, once as recently as a few months ago. I tried to use the search function to prevent this from happening, however apparently I cannot use it. While I can appreciate that some of the bells and whistles cannot be accessed by us temps, I would think that allowing us to search would be good because not only does it give us a chance to NOT be redundant which annoys the membership and wastes bandwidth, but it allows us to see what we’re paying for since the ability to access the archives is a large part of why I would pony up the cash.
We are rightfully encouraged to read before we post, however a way to efficiently access much of the board is removed from us.
Is it possible to allow seacrching only for members whose trial month hasn’t expired yet? That would make the most sense, I think - it would take away the ability to search when the trial ended but have it there when we can post.
This would particularly be helpful when starting topical threads.
Say you want to talk about a movie you just saw but it’s been out a few days.
The threads only record the last two days, so how are you to know it’s been done.
On the other hand, I do wonder why people care about duplicate threads. So a movie is being discussed again and your opinion from last week is not being remembered. This is no different than when people at work hold the same discussions. When two people at work start talking about a movie, would you jump in and say “Hold on, that’s already been discussed! You can watch the old security camera tape but you can’t start a new discussion.” I’d hope not.
You do have access to older threads. At the bottom of the forum paages just change “from the last 2 days” to “from the beginning” or “from the last month”.
Of course it’s not as convenient as the search function, but at least you can check wether something you want to start a thread about has been discussed recently.
I also don’t think that many members are really annoyed by repeated threads. Some probably are, but you shouldn’t worry about them too much. And most people who post saying that a topic has been talked about before do so to be helpful, often to post a link to the older thread so you can join the existing discussion rather than try to start a new one. And if the thread linked to is too old to post to (a few weeks in most forums, cafe society is less strict), it’s probably OK to start a new thread about the topic anyway.
The reason why guests can’t search is that the search function is one of the two major selling points for the paid membership. The other is the ability to post. If guests could do both, that would probably increase the number of those who sign up, use the board for a month, and the sign up again under a different name for another month. And those would who do this only to use the search funktion would be even harder to detect than those who actually post under different names. So I don’t think that will be changed.
We want our guests to become subscribing members and the fact of the matter is that we offer more goodies to subscribers. It’s how the system works.
However, since you’ve apparently had serial guest memberships (which is not allowed here, it’s a major abuse of the system), I would say you have more problems on your hands right now than the search function working for you.
It is generally our policy to give people the benefit of the doubt – except for spammers, who just die die die – and I was overhasty here.
Sorry about that. Guest away here . . . and consider being a member, when you’d have more privileges, including search. (Such as search be, it’s not a very robust engine, let me put it that way.)
We really do want people to be sustaining members of the community – we think what we have here is the neatest clubhouse and we want everybody to get in on the deal. To that end, we can be a bit overzealous protecting said clubhouse; we’ve had to throw out quite a few serial guests . . . and when you’ve thrown out as many as we have lately, it does tend to skew your view.
No worries about me repeating my membership here. Within the month I’ll either pay or amscray (it was not easy to come up with a word that rhymed) I can promise you that unless I someone to pay for me… Christmas is coming after all… Maybe Wolfian will volunteer if he likes me so much…
As for my initial question, I understand. Hopefully members will be cognizant of the fact that us rookies sometimes will be redundant. And repetitive. And say the same thing over again. And be redundant.
I don’t think it does any harm for the same topics to come up over and over; discussion is good, maybe we’ll occasionally get a new insight on something we thought we already knew everything about.
Some of the initial replies to a well-worn question (particularly if that question happens to be based on an urban legend or other similar misinformation) will appear terse; “We already discussed that here” or “Here’s what Cecil says”, or even just “Snopes”.
The brief, snappy, seemingly aggressive nature of these posts is less to do with personal rebuke and more to do with the frantic rush to be the first person to dispel the misinformation; dunno why the urgency exists, but I know I’ve been guilty of it myself. I reckon it’s a sort of Pavlovian thing caused by exposure to the prevailing board ethic.
Did you make the same mistake I did, and misinterpret the OP’s “I have been moderately rebuked twice now for starting threads that have already been discussed, once as recently as a few months ago” as meaning that he started threads a few months ago?
Anyway, I think the OP does have a point, but it’s no big deal either way. By now most of us know not to jump on a Guest for not searching before posting.
I am gleefully imagining a lone ear hopping from key to key writing posts. And I am also amusing myself by imagining what other celebrity bodyparts are hidden behind SDMB usernames.
I also hope that you weren’t actually “rebuked,” per se. Remember that tone of voice doesn’t come across the internet, so someone telling you that there was another post on this topic and giving you a link is not necessarily “rebuking.”
