Moderator's Notes: On General Questions

[BunnyGirl]

I like the Questions of Fact idea for a change in the column name and maybe a new one for Advice/Suggestions.

[malaka]

*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose *
Malaka, sometimes “intelligent questions” don’t receive answers simply because nobody knows the answer. I’ve noticed that these frequently tend to be pop culture questions, like “Who first put pennies into penny loafers?” Nobody really knows off the top of their head, and those of us who are interested enough to open a new window and go cruising around on Google aren’t able to find an answer, either. So instead of tying up the server by posting “I went and looked for it but I couldn’t find anything”, we just shrug and move on to the next thread.

True…good point. However, with such a vast resource of intelligent minds available on this board, I guess I always thought that the “pop culture” questions were easy…especially when compared to questions like this.

Don’t sweat it, 'kay? Don’t interpret it as a personal insult, “Oh, that Malaka, nobody wants to talk to him, he’s such a loser”, because it’s not like that.

Thanks! After nearly a year on this board (frequent lurker…occasional poster), I did have this distinct feeling of being “out of the clique”.

p.s. I would have emailed you, but your addy is turned off. Sorry for tying up the server with a “me too”.

[conway]

So what are you saying? "http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=55793"this isn’t appropriate?

[schief2]

Originally posted by Attrayant *
**
(There were actually only seven matches to the word “create”, which I find hard to believe)*

I believe the one problem with the search feature is the small, easy-to-overlook option in the bottom right corner: Search by Date. For some reason, it defaults to only searching threads from the last five days.

I’ve been around here for a few months, and I can’t tell how many times I’ve searched for a thread that I know existed in the past, only to be unable to find it. Inevitably, the reason I can’t find it is because I forgot to change ‘Search by Date’ to ‘Any Date’, which IMHO should be what it defaults to.

To me, it’s no wonder people are constantly starting posts with, “I searched for this in the archive, but couldn’t find anything…” If you don’t remember/notice to change that setting, you’re only searching a tiny percentage of the SDMB archive.

Couldn’t this be changed so that searches default to the entire archive, or at least the last 30 days? I have a feeling it’d go a long way towards cutting down some of the repetitive posting in GQ.

[Crusoe]

The problem with that is that it would dramatically increase the load on the search engine and database. The same people who forget to select the right date option now will end up causing the search engine to trawl through the entire database. I seem to recall someone saying that it’s functions like searching that really cause performance issues.

[Colibri]

This is just to let you know that a {url=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1062415]similar topic is currently also being discussed on “About This Message Board.”

I’m also posting to bump the thread, and to second the motion that manhattan’s OP perhaps be placed as a permanent announcement for the forum. And maybe some other forums need this kind of announcement too.

[Patty_O_Furniture]

Schief2 said:

I believe the one problem with the search feature is the small, easy-to-overlook option in the bottom right corner: Search by Date. For some reason, it defaults to only searching threads from the last five days.

I believe I did set it to go back 30 days, and I was going to confirm that right now but I’m getting this:

Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

Whussup wit dat?

But even when the search engine is working, there are times when you can search for the word “Kosher” and come up with the thread “Kosher and exotic meats” and then search with the word “exotic” and not be able to find the very same thread. Sometimes I think the search engine is just a little disturbed.

[omni-not]

I totally agree with manhattan on this. Far too many questions simply shouldn’t be in this Forum. Posters should be more discriminant and spend a bit more time searching the archives and the rest of the Net. I’ll admit to being guilty myself at times. Which doesn’t make it more excusable.

I also like the idea of creating an extra Forum dealing with such matters as physical aches and pains, carburator trouble, PC woes et al..

Also, given the number of posts and threads in the respective Forums, I think you should seriously consider adding a moderator to the GQ forum, or at least spread the work more evenly. I’ll be the first to say that manhattan and Chronos have been and are doing a bang-up job. But a little extra help wouldn’t hurt.

[TVeblen]

*Originally posted by cooldude *
**What is more difficult? Closing a thread, or moving it. What makes a better point as to where a type of thread belongs? Closing the thread, or moving it to the desired board.

I do understand what you are saying, but threads have been closed that have made me wonder, Why? Threads have been allowed to remain indefinitely, then surprisingly closed on an apparant whim (maybe you are not fond of the answers). Threads have been closed because the question was not phrased in the form of a question (is this Jeopardy?).

I respect your effort, and maybe the growth has been a bit overwhelming, but there lack of consistency in your actions. **

Lessee, your reaction to a reasonable request is to allege whimsicality, coy “Jeopardy” little gotcha-games with question phrasing and inconsistency.

Let me tell you, cooldude this sure isn’t “respectful” in any sense or to anyone trying to make GQ work better. Your post was clear, classic Pit material. Got a problem with the administration of the board: take it to the Pit! Start another “mods suck” thread; we haven’t had one for at least a week or so.

This makes me angry. No one could ask for a more reasoned, polite request for cooperation but your response…feh. Either you don’t or won’t “get it”. But you just hawked a loogie on all the folks here.

Veb

[dtilque]

*Originally posted by Attrayant *
Shouldn’t any match for “CDs” also be a match for “CD”??

The search engine is matching entire words only, not parts of words. Words are delimited by non-alphanumeric (or possibly non-alphabetic) characters. So to the engine, CD and CDs are different words.

Originally posted by omni-not
Also, given the number of posts and threads in the respective Forums, I think you should seriously consider adding a moderator to the GQ forum, or at least spread the work more evenly. I’ll be the first to say that manhattan and Chronos have been and are doing a bang-up job. But a little extra help wouldn’t hurt.

As far as adding a moderator to GQ, it wasn’t all that long ago that manhattan was the only moderator here. I made the suggestion that it needed another moderator, but manny said, no, I can handle it. A few weeks later, Chronos was added as moderator. Is history going to repeat?

[bluecanary]

There’s a thread in ATMB debating what can be done about GQ.

[LazarusLong42]

I hate to post just to bump, but:

[bump]

Everyone needs to see it.

LL

[astro]

*Originally posted by Attrayant *
**Zyada said:

“How do I make my PC do this?”/“What’s wrong with my PC”

There are a lot of so called generall questions like this where people are seeking answers to questions aimed at people in specific (usually professional) fields (PC techs in the above example). Others are:
Perhaps a new forum addressing these sorts of issues might take the load off of GQ. I’m sure that you’d want a big bold disclaimer below the forum heading stating that the Straight Dope, et al. makes no claims… and does not assume liability… and recommends you seek 1-on-1 advice from professions… and strongly encourages those who are bleeding from both eyes to call 911… and so on.

I personally think that the forum list is near reaching critical mass, and realize that one more forum means at least one more moderator and probably an additional drain on server resources. But as long as we’re brainstorming here…

**

Re this suggestion. I respond to a lot of PC tech questions as do several others here because I am perusing GQ and I see a desperate plea for help advice etc. I know it sounds odd but part of the reason I respond (for better or worse) is that here’s this question I can possibly help with stuck in amongst the other “How do I?” “Who What When” etc questions. Part of it is a sincere desire to help and part is probably a personal ego moment of “Hey I can help with that!” The most important motivation, though, is a nascent sense of an extended community. It’s sort of like helping a neighbor.

If you ghettoize the PC tech stuff I (and I suspect other PC gearheads) are probably going to be less likely to respond, as PC problems are often tedious to answer and I am not going to go hunting them down in their separate forum. There are newsgroups a plenty on the web already for that. SDMBs unique structure encourages participation. If you subdivide it too much that “village square” charm will be lost and you might as well be a newsgroup.

[DKW]

DDG - Thanks. I think I searched through five pages without finding it.

Anyway, I now believe that we need an advice board and a specific questions board. The hell with “board overabundance” or whatever, there’s a problem here and we gotta deal with it.

For my part, I promise to use the search engine more. Although I’m pretty sure the only thing I posted that was already up was the Y2K thing. Mea culpa, anyway.

[TheThill]

Is this all really a problem that needs to be addressed right away? Or are we just thinking about possible, if unnecessary ways to improve the board.

Personally, I like the current format and the “every topic goes” generality of it. I have noticed the problem with questions quickly sliding down into oblivion, though. Personally, I try to check page 2 of GQ as well.

So maybe the answer might be to make it easier to move to the next page with a larger, more obvious “next page” button.

[dtilque]

*Originally posted by TheThill *
So maybe the answer might be to make it easier to move to the next page with a larger, more obvious “next page” button.

I agree that this would be a good improvement. These days I’m having to check 3 pages for all the posts from one day.

[cegan523]

in an attempt to bump in a not so obvious manner…

I second (third, fourth…?) the idea about a couple new categories, especially “advice”… just makes sense.

[Colibri]

Since this hasn’t been bumped yet today and is off the front page, I am bumping it.

But it also gives me the chance to apologize for screwing up the link to the ATMB discussion, and thank others for fixing the link.

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Eh, Brandocet, your link just goes to the Main Forums page, so I’m afraid we all kinda missed your point.

Manhattan, do you want us to keep bumping this thread, or not? It’s at the bottom of page 2.

Or it was, till just now.

<< bump >>

[Alphagene]

I have all of these sites bookmarked and they can be used to answer a crapload of questions. They have all been used at some point to answer questions seen in GQ. More judicious use of these links prior to posting would reduce unneccesary GQ traffic significantly.

General Info
The Straight Dope Archive
Reference Desk
Britannica Online
Google
The Last Word
How Stuff Works

Books and English
alt.usage.english FAQ
Babelfish Translations
Miriam-Webster Dictionary & Thesaurus
Anagram Engine
The Complete Plays of William Shakespeare (searchable)
The Word Detective
Word Oddities and Trivia
Project Gutenberg
Bibliomania

Science & Health
Centers for Disease Control
Conversion of Units
International System of Units
WebMD
Heavens Above
PubMed Medline
Physical Constants
WebElements

Entertainment
Internet Movie Database
Ultimate Band List
Simpsons FAQ

Religion
Catholic Encyclopedia
Judaism 101
King James Bible (searchable)
Skeptic’s Dictionary
Logic & Fallacies

Urban Legends
alt.folklore.urban & Urban Legends Archive
Snopes

Other
CIA World Fact Book
FindAGrave
MapQuest
Internet FAQ Consortium

[Edited by Alphagene on 01-20-2001 at 12:54 PM]