# Searching v. Starting Redundant Threads **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [July 10, 2001, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-v-starting-redundant-threads/71965 "2001-07-10T16:02:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2001, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-v-starting-redundant-threads/71965/1 "2001-07-10T16:02:02Z")
The problem with redundant threads is that the OP generally doesn’t _know_ it’s redundant. Take _All Your Base_ (please ;)). There were at least a half-dozen AYB threads in MPSIMS, which each OP would start, having no idea that it was the talk of the Net, and that someone else had started another AYB thread just a few days before. The OP would think s/he had just come across this clever thing that nobody else knew about yet, and would just _have_ to share it with the SD world. I got caught like that once myself - not with AYB, fortunately, but with something else like it (can’t remember what). Saw it, started a thread about it, then was acerbically (if that’s the adverbial form of ‘acerbic’) pointed to the previous thread on the subject. In the case of AYB, the mods seemed to be pretty disgruntled about repeatedly having yet another AYB thread pop up. But the only way to keep these pile-ups from happening is to routinely search before starting threads. And the message has come through, loud and clear, that few things tax the server like searches do. So, should we routinely search first, or not? I’m happy to go either way. I want to keep the mods happy, within reason, but I also don’t want to slow down the boards. ---
**Author:** ![Scarlett67](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scarlett67/32/7387_2.png) [@Scarlett67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarlett67)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2001, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-v-starting-redundant-threads/71965/2 "2001-07-10T16:12:11Z")
I suspect that many of these gaffes are result of newbies not lurking long enough to get a feel for the culture of whatever group they’ve just joined. It happens in the other online communities I participate in. Too many folks don’t lurk or RTFFAQ – they just jump in with both clueless feet. (I don’t intend this to be a slam on the OP – it happens to all of us at one point or another. I said _many,_ not _all_.) ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2001, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-v-starting-redundant-threads/71965/3 "2001-07-10T16:47:00Z")
Little searches are generally not a problem. It’s them big, resource intensive searches, like “Search All” or “Search Any Date” that bring the rest of the board activity to a standstill. We’ve eliminated most of this kind of searching, so it’s not an issue. You can still clog things up pretty good, but you have to work at it. And of course we would always prefer that you look around a bit and search a tad before you go throwing something “new” up there. your humble TubaDiva Administrator ---
**Author:** ![bibliophage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bibliophage/32/7615_2.png) [@bibliophage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bibliophage)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2001, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-v-starting-redundant-threads/71965/4 "2001-07-10T18:45:18Z")
I almost always search before starting a new thread, but I wait until late at night when it’s less likely to give the server suicidal thoughts. This strategy also makes me think twice about starting threads. When I start them on the spur of the moment, I often regret it later. ---
**Author:** ![seawitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@seawitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/seawitch)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2001, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-v-starting-redundant-threads/71965/5 "2001-07-10T22:27:16Z")
I have to be honest here - I have never started a thread, and this is exactly why. Having a more limited search feature is simply the final nail in the coffin. **Scarlett67,** , no offense, but the “you didn’t lurk long enough” judgment is inhibiting to anyone new. As it happens, I lurked a long, long time - but I can’t read every thread. And many OP’s by recent members are met with a fairly disparaging “we did this already” sort of response. It keeps me in the read-only group. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2001, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-v-starting-redundant-threads/71965/6 "2001-07-11T18:04:35Z")
Eh, Seawitch, you’ll be glad to know that we no longer have the death penalty for starting redundant threads. If you’ll go back and check, you’ll see that _not a single poster_ was stood up against the wall and shot for posting yet another “All your Base”, or “What is Ginger?”, or “Moon landing hoax” thread. We are civilized people, my dear, and we just don’t do that. So start threads to your heart’s content, sweetie–damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. Do a quick Search, and if nothing pops up on the subject, go ahead and start your thread. And if you do happen to post something that’s been asked already, it’s not the end of the world, and if somebody flames ya for what he _happens to think_ is one thread too many on “lactation difficulties and calcium insufficiencies in goats”, all you need to _say_ is a rather stiff, “Well, excuse me, but I didn’t see those other threads”, and get on with the discussion at hand. To sum up, we wish people would Search, but if they don’t, it’s not like they have to move to a different town out of humiliation. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2001, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-v-starting-redundant-threads/71965/7 "2001-07-11T18:22:20Z")
Another word of caution I offer to new posters - the general tone of the SDMB is very similar to what you see in Cecil Adams’ columns (you _have_ read some of those I assume), which is humorous sarcasm and impatience with stupidity. So if you’re the kind of person who is easily offended, choleric and/or disapproving of pointed wit, you might not enjoy the SDMB. Example: Someone posting the infamous question “what’s the third english word ending in -gry” is very probably going to get a rough ride in her/his thread. But if you’re able to laugh and roll with the punches, you’ll do fine. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2001, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-v-starting-redundant-threads/71965/8 "2001-07-11T19:16:05Z")
Thanks, **TubaDiva** , I appreciate the clarification. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2001, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-v-starting-redundant-threads/71965/9 "2001-07-11T19:22:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > \*\* If you’ll go back and check, you’ll see that _not a single poster_ was stood up against the wall and shot for posting yet another “All your Base”, or “What is Ginger?”, or “Moon landing hoax” thread. > \*\* Although for the “all your base” threads, we thought about it. But yeah, **Duckie** is right here. **Seawitch** , you post what you want. If someone finds a link for you, that’s good. If they’re a little curt about it, well that’s kind of how the board works sometime – it’s less time consuming to simply stick the link in with a short comment. But if they’re _mean_, well, that’s why **Tuba** keeps me around. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2001, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-v-starting-redundant-threads/71965/10 "2001-07-11T21:11:21Z")
Yeah, just think of **manny** as **Tuba** ’s doberman. ---
**Author:** ![seawitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@seawitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/seawitch)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2001, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-v-starting-redundant-threads/71965/11 "2001-07-12T00:10:29Z")
I actually think of **Tuba** as sort of fluffy and pale pink, with little wings - and **Manny** as dark, dramatic, lean and mean, with any number of sharp edged weapons at his disposal. A real good cop/bad cop setup - which is why it’s so surprising when **Tuba** whips out her wand and turns you into a toad. [sub]Assuming one is untoadly to begin with.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2001, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-v-starting-redundant-threads/71965/12 "2001-07-12T20:37:35Z")
The thing is, when a reg posts a link to a previous thread, it probably doesn’t mean that he searches every new thread he ever sees. Usually, it means that that person remembered the thread, and because he knew it existed, he searched. Result? Newbie sees in-depth answers to question, and search doesn’t end up getting used for every single thread. I think that the only problem here is when people interpret the link to the old thread as some sort of condemnation, when it’s not (usually) intended that way. **Seawitch** , how about me, as dark, dramatic, slightly overweight, and median, and with blunt weapons? ---
**Author:** ![seawitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@seawitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/seawitch)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2001, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-v-starting-redundant-threads/71965/13 "2001-07-12T23:57:44Z")
**Chronos** - one should never turn down a Time Lord. Who knows when a few extra hours could come in handy? And **Arnold** - I own all of Unca Cecil’s books, often from the first time I could get my hands on them. How else would I know why pigeons bob their heads?