bump, as the same question about the origin of “the finger”, of all things, shows up on the same page.
BUMP
*bump.
Yea, new categories!
- GQ
- Tech
- Pop culture
- “Homework Help” *
- I know this is a sore point with many dopers, but personally I can’t see the problem with people asking ( not previously posted) stuff they could find out elsewhere (searches, etc), as long as there are others willing to answer them. I have posted replies to such questions in the past, and it doesn’t bother me. Which questions fit into this category is quite arbitrary really anyway (most GQ questions could be answered in non-SDMB ways, depending on how much research one is willing to do). As long as it’s in its own forum, I can’t see why anyone would mind. If you don’t like it, don’t go to that particular forum.
Okay, I asked this as part of a hijack on another thread, but I want to get a little more input from y’all, so I will ask it as part of this one: are we so concerned about saving space (bandwith) that we have to forego the common decency of saying “thanks” to someone who has helped us with an answer? What I mean to say is, the “Thanks, Quasi” at the end of my original postings seems inadequate somehow if a person has taken time to research something on my behalf and has educated me. As I said over on ATMB, I really feel that in order to close out the thread, I need to say thank you to those who helped me. Your comments?
Thanks
Quasi 
To me, it’s kind of a balancing act of to whom to be courteous. On the one hand, obviously thanking someone who has shared their expertise and/or done research for you is a great thing.
But on the other, not only does a “thanks” post push a thread to the top, it induces a bunch of people to re-read the thread only to find that the new post doesn’t add anything.
I’d say that if a poster just provides a link or a “quickie” answer, let the thanks be implied. If a lot of effort clearly went into the answer, than a “thanks” post is fine.
That’s not a forum rule or anything, BTW. Just sort of a general sense of what I think is the best way to approach the dilemma.
Yes, I always want to thank people for interesting replies, but I realized at the start that as manhattan says, it doesn’t add anything and people would be consulting it and just find thanks! and as I say, it uses up valuable thread energy. So everyone should consider themselves thanksed automaticably. (And never forget that Joan Crawford was known for always sending thankyou notes to those who had invited her or given her a gift or anything, and she also sent thankyou notes for people who thanked her when she had given them something! She had a live-in secretary for this.
If Joan was on this site she would have blown it out and down the FLAMINGO ROAD).
On the topic of new forums: I am a post count newbie here, but have been lurking for well over a year, and it seems to me like we really wouldn’t need a separate Pop Culture forum. Cecil answers a crapload of pop culture-related questions himself, so it seems to me like there’s no reason those questions can’t be in GQ. And if people just want to discuss pop culture or whatever, they can do it in MPSIMS. I like the idea of a Tech forum, though. It’s sort of mentally disconcerting to be reading through a list of interesting GQ questions only to stumble over, “My hard drive won’t work” or whatever.
My $.02! (And a thread bump, as well.)
One thing that could help alleviate this whole dilemma is for authors to make the title of the original post more clear. If a title is ambiguous the topic is far less likely to be caught in a subsequent search.
Along these lines if the moderators could provide a keyword list on threads (the author of the OP could too but the topics often wander) the search would be faster and more accurate.
I’ve always been aware that some of the questions I ask have been asked before or that there are sites that could give me the “Final Expert Answer.” That’s not why I’m asking my question on the SDMB. I want several answers. I want the same answer worded several ways. I want to see if the “Final Expert Answer” is disputed by anyone and how reasonable their answer is.
I want to be able to juggle several different ways of thinging and be able to actually feel the weight of these ideas. I want to hold them up to the light and see what shines through.
Also, after a long discourse giving me the same answer I have heard a million times I might get an oh by the way comment on a different subject that sends me on a different trip.
There is more than one answer.
judyism
Bump
I find it humourous that Manhattan’s OP generally was describing ways to keep GQ from overflowing with messages, and now this thread has become one of the longest (and therefore “part of the problem”) threads on GQ!
Can’t you just delete all the posts past the OP, or as has been suggested a few times, make it permanent somewhere?
I’ve been an active user for the last couple months. I am greatly in favor of modifying the process of starting new threads. Search engine results on your thread sounds great. Reminder of the board rules/philosophy sounds great. I would suggest moderating it – that is, no new thread gets posted until a moderator looks at it and approves it.
This might not be the right thread, but I’m not sure where else to put it. Anyone want to point me to the right place? One thing that could be improed is the system that sends you emails when there are new posts. It would be truly excellent if it could bring to the first post since your last post, or even your last post. Also, you should have the option to get emails even if you don’t post. Sometimes I’m interested in a thread but have nothign to say.
Normally it doesn’t matter, but on some of the longer threads like this one or the May 33rd one, it would be a big help, espeically considering the load time of the system.
Here’s another:
http://www.hicitizen.com/
More government and civics than you can shake a stick at! (Do all your applying, registering, re-registering, enlisting, etc. online as well.)
bump
The only problem is that the people who need to read this thread probably won’t! I understand the reasoning behind creating new forums, but I already spend a whole lotta time moving threads out of this and into more appropriate (usually IMHO) forums. Maybe the “General” in GQ makes people think “anything goes” in here, as someone suggested earlier.
Bump
BUMP
Hey, how the heck did I miss this the first time around. I’m saving this whole thread, except for bumps like this one.
Regarding searching before posting, I have two comments to make. Before I get to them, however, I’d like to say that I agree that some thought should be put into whether or not to post in General Questions.
My first comment is regarding searching before posting. If searching slows down the message board, then it seems to me that you are trading one problem for another. I will admit that the overabundance of questions in GQ may be the worse of the two, but it still sucks if the board is very slow. In any case, I often don’t have enough time to do a board search and a web search to discover the answer to a question. Besides, if I had a question that I thought other people on the SDMB wanted to know the answer to and I went out and found the answer on my own, then what do I do? Do I post the question and the answer? I think that part of what makes threads interesting is the dialogue between posters and also seeing the process of discovering the answer.
My second comment is sort of a question (although slightly rhetorical). Could you have a monthly (weekly?) SDMB posting workshop? I mean to say, what if there was an announcement that would have a useful crash course on topics such as where to post and what to do before posting. You could also have a list of useful reference links and a list of links to questions that come up too often. I suppose it wouldn’t have to be an announcement, just as long as it was clearly visible and easy for newbies to get to. Along similar lines, I add my voice to those who are urging that this thread be put in the announcements.
Glad to see that people are concerned about keeping this message board useful,
-sjc