Yeah, it probably was a good candidate for that, but I think we should avoid that kind if snark here and welcome curosity, even if we are doubtful of the sincerity of the OP.
Yes, I don’t disagree. Noting in passing that the “potash” thread was by a long-time poster.
Google is becoming more and more garbage every day. I like seeing some of these “easily-Googleable” questions here, because the resulting discussions can be far more enlightening than a modern AI-assisted web search.
I miss the sweet spot from 5-2 years ago when Google often would give you an instantaneous but accurate answer at the top without having to click the links. That was slightly better than previously when it would still return accurate links. Now, the actual search mechanism has enshittified, and the instant results are untrustworthy, sometimes being accurate but sometimes AI hallucinations.
Now the very top search result from Google is an “AI Overview”.
Yeah, about that…
But what if “fucking” is a legitimate, necessary keyword for your search, and you want the AI overview? In that case, you’re fucked.
A simple “Just give me the “fucking” link” should do the job. 
It’s against the rules to link to that because it’s considered jerkish. I call it the Jinx Rule.
We did just have an “I don’t feel like reading this Wikipedia article on potash, so please tell me what’s in it” OP. Which struck me as not something to encourage. But the ensuing discussion was good so maybe it is.
I’d prefer if those “I can’t bother to google something simple” threads were more “I googled ‘potash’ because I’d never encountered it before - has anyone had it before/what’s your experience with potash/where can I get a good potash?” But I’ve usually self-selected out of “please google this for me” threads ever since LMGTFY was outlawed.
I shouldn’t have but that in quotation marks. Actual quote:
Please, can someone save me a trip to Wikipedia?
I read the potash one and enjoyed the Doper answers. I assumed it was an archaiic term like fly ash, but did not know its origins. Dopers are very good at useless trivia, and Im sure our families are all relieved to have that font of information directed at others.
Wikipedia could have answered the question I am sure, but it seems some dopers didn’t mind answering.
I mean, the whole point of this message board is the discussions, right? You can get answers to your questions anywhere; on the SDMB, you get answers to questions you didn’t even think to ask.
I think the rise of Google and Wikipedia took a lot out of this board. And really the original column that spawned it.
The Potash OP is a longtime and respected poster. I took the “trip to wiki” bit as a humorously self-effacing “I’m no scientist; explain it simply … please.”
Which is fair.
As we discovered in the thread, there’s a lot more to the term “potash” than “its a synonym for potassium chloride”.
I would prefer people just say the second phrase.“I do not know” is the beginning of all wisdom. It has been my overwhelming experience that if a question takes an expert to answer, most people will not expect you to know it or mock you for not knowing it.
It certainly killed much of the value of GQ. Which was sorta the “gateway drug” to the other forums.
And, with the demise of the GD of old (I am still totally blown at how dead it is now, vs. how active it was years ago, even adjusting for the existence of P&E), the board and its culture certainly looks a lot different now than it did back in the 00’s. If you had wandered into GD back then and told all the usual suspects there that 2 decades later a game subforum involving a bunch of silly threads would have 100x as many daily posts as in GD, they would have called you completely insane.