We had this conversation two months ago.

The BBQ Pit
1

Just a little something that annoys me. This follows on from a thread about words that annoy you, but this is more a thing that people do that annoys me.

It is the immediate linking to a thread up to many years ago when the topic was discussed before.

Well, I think this is perfectly alright for General Questions. You ask a question, the answers is out there, so you’ll be happy with that.

But for the other lists…okay, your the topic was perhaps covered before, but it IS chatter. A lot of new people join every day you know. And imagine this scenario. You walk into the pub and say " Lovely day , isn’t it" and the guy at the bar says “sorry, we discussed weather two years and a week ago, here is a tape of us discussing the weather on that faithful day, now go and listen to that instead.” It 's just not the same, is it? So let people talk a little, if you’re bored of a topic, just ignore the thread.

SL

2

I think thread nazis in general are funny. You know, the ones who jump up excitedly at the prospect of demonstrating not that they know the answer, but that google does or that a past thread does.

Not that they don’t have a valid point, I just think that’s a weird thrill to have in life.

3

I agree.

Every time someone posts “We did this here”, I want to ask “So fucking what??”. But I usually hold my tongue.

4

I disagree.

I tend to think of linking to an older thread that covered the topic at hand as more of a reference or background kind of aid.

It doesn’t necessarily have to stop the tread cold, but can be more of a point of reference type suggestion.

I know when I’ve done this, I usually worded it along the lines of, 'You know, this just came up a month or so ago. And poster ‘X’ happened to nail the answer.

I like the idea of giving credit to someone who previously got the answer down pat, too. I think they deserve some credit.

I also think the more information a person can get on the topic their asking, the better. Who knows if the current thread asking the old question will cover all the issues the previous one had.

I think it helps, rather than hurts. But it certainly could be used the wrong way, ‘You doofus. We covered this topic. Use the search button next time!’. That’s not really cool.

What bugs me, in these kinds of threads are the, “This belongs in Great Debates” or, “Three… Two… One… I’m just waiting for someone to come along and move this thread. It’s not a general question, it’s a …” and so on.

Those posts always tick me off. Even more so are the ones that simply say, “This doesn’t belong here” and nothing else.

It’s like, Whoopdee Fuck! So you, and I, and everyone else, knows where this thread should be. What’s the point, huh?

A mod will be along soon enough and move it.

If it happens all the time with a particular poster, then fine, go ahead and ‘count down to the thread being moved’, or some such stale line, but oftentimes it’s simply glurge.

5

This has been covered before:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=36134

In a thread I started, natch.

Sorry.

6

Everything has been covered before. If we linked to former conversations, two years ago, then there wouldn’t be anything to talk about, now would there?

But I agree that in GQ, it’s fine.

7

There are valid points to both sides of the argument. The difference your pub scenario and this board is that you can add messages to the original thread to keep it going. The pub’s conversation is over the moment it’s over.

But how far back must the original thread be until it becomes acceptable to create a new one? I don’t have a freaking clue. Certainly if it’s in the last two weeks, you can bump the thread. Or at the very least search for it!

Back in November, there were new election threads popping up every single day. Christ, did no one bother to even scan down the current threads before creating a new one? And sometimes the reason people get pissed off is because someone new comes along and says (to the effect of) “AHA! I have the answer to the abortion debate. Here’s an argument I’ll bet no one has ever ever heard of.” and we have. And we tell them we have.

This isn’t to say newer members can’t participate in old debates or old subject matters. Far from it. We need new perspective on things.

8

My PERSONAL opinion is that this is all right. It’s quite possible that the original poster will come back to the thread before a mod moves it, and sees that s/he posted in the wrong forum to begin with. Let’s face it, the OP clearly didn’t know where to put the thread in the first place, so it’s quite likely that s/he doesn’t know that threads can and will be moved. I see it as a teaching aide.

However, that is my PERSONAL viewpoint, and does not (or maybe it does, I don’t think that we’ve ever discussed it) reflect the Official Stand On This Matter. My opinion is tainted by the fact that someone, me or some other mod, will have to move that thread, or close it, or do SOMETHING with it. I want the OP to learn better. Constantly closing or moving threads is a bother, and I’d rather that people learn to post the thread where it belongs in the first place. I recognize, however, that there is some degree of overlap, and that threads do drift, so we will always have to move some threads.

9

several other possabilities:

For example - the "all your base belong to us’ phenonmenon. At one point there had been something like 20 threads in various forums in a space of a couple weeks. that was more than a bit much, IMHO.

Another example - some one posted in MPSIMS asking for funny funeral stories. I linked to a thread I’d done with a funny funeral experience as the OP, which itself linked to yet another thread with funny funeral experiences in it. The OP was grateful, those of us who’d already typed a response could save ourselves the trouble, and those who’d missed both earlier versions were free to add more.
Life’s too short to get all twisted about something like this. Either a thread will generate responses on it’s own or not. Linking to prior threads wouldn’t prevent others from discussing it yet again (there’s a multitude of topics in great debates that get done over and over, sometimes with the same participants, sometimes with others, they almost always link to prior threads as well - I’ve never taken offense at that)

10

Huh.

I guess I never thought of it that way. And it makes sense, too.

Learn something new everday… and in the pit no less.

:: CnoteChris prepares to see this happen everywhere now. Cnote shudders ::

11

Shouldn’t this really be in ATMB?

12

I don’t mind at all when people do this when, like CnoteChris mentioned, it links to an intelligent response to a question someone might be asking or something of the sort.

Although, it bothers me when someone started a thread just for fun about something such as “What kind of beer do YOU drink” and another doper posts “Oh well, we’ve done this here, here, and not to mention here!” (I used that as an example because when I first registered there was a thread along those lines in which someone responded with that) Well la-de-friggin-da, isn’t that just great? Why don’t you just humour the person and take a few minutes out of your busy schedule and just answer the question. Or, maybe just ignore the thread all together, or is that so hard?