It is a help when someone links a thread to the subject under discussion, when it is for info. What I fail to understand is when it is used as a reason that there should be no new posts on the subject.
Just because you may have discussed it has no influence on others that might not have been involved, new people join everyday and have a like to post also.
Reading previous posts is not as interactive as posting yourself.
If you are not interested with a subject it’s as simple as not clicking on the thread.
And without a doubt if nobody else is interested either, it will fall into oblivion in no time at all.
Actually, iwire, I consider that sort of post a bit rude to the newbie who started it (and nearly always it is a newbie). But, divorced of the attitude that “well, we’ve been over that ground; where were you?” and the implication that you can’t search for beans, the information that there have been previous threads on a topic is useful – it means you don’t need to “re-invent the wheel” regarding it.
If I have time, I’ll do a search and link to the subject; if I’m low on time to post, or the board or the search engine is running slow, I’ll advise you that, e.g., I remember an extensive thread on training hamsters back in the Fall of 2001 in which Jodi and Satan gave some good advice on getting them into those little uniforms, and that it’s well worth reading – leaving it to you to search out the thread as you have time.
Guilty as charged. I did it in a Great Debates thread titled Interesting Thought. The “interesting thought” turned out to be a question, namely, whether having sex with an identical twin is masturbation or homosexual sex.
I suspect that it’s “we already talked about this” and linking to old threads that leads to the practise of replying to those old discussions and thus bumping them. Of course, people don’t seem to like this, either. What’s a poor newbie to do?
I’m sorry that I came down on you, but I find it annoying when people post threads without doing a search first. It’s sort of like entering a conversation and bringing up something that’s already been talked to DEATH. It’s especially annoying (as you will come to see as you stick around) when the topic and dialogue really aren’t that interesting to begin with.
Doing a cursory search isn’t that difficult, as this non-newbie, non-“oldie” Doper has come to realize. It saves embarrassment on your part and irration on the part of everyone else. It also educates. Hopefully you gleamed some information from the threads I linked to. And you may understand why I–and other posters–reacted the way we did.
Have there been a lot of threads where people have specifically stated that because we already talked about something, there should be no new posts on the subject? - I’d wager that 95% of references to previous discussions of a subject are in good faith and are intended merely to inform.
I don’t know, Mangetout, I see it all the time in GD where someone says “We’ve already discussed this before, try using the search feature some time.” That is hard for me to take in any way other than: “Shut up.”
When I first started posting, that was very much the type of comment that was in vogue … “We’ve already said everything that can be said on that topic. If you had just done a search, then you would have already known that” ::Newbie sneer smiley:: Being the good little doper, I dutifully searched and searched before I ventured forth to start a new thread, lest I face the shame of possibly duplicating a topic (the horrors!)
Then we all came to learn that you’re actually being a bigger pain in the ass to the board at large by tying it up with pointless searches than you are by starting a new topic.
I know jdavis & co have been doing work on tuning up the hamsters; perhaps now searching doesn’t tie up resources quite as much as it did in the past.
In general, though, I just find myself fascinated by people who get so mortally offended by someone else starting a new conversation on a topic that’s already been covered. Their pain threshold must be exquisitely more sensitive than mine.
Yup, this always bothers me. The following phrases appear to be especially dismissive:
“Here we go again”
And
“This has already been done”
If there was a previous thread on the same subject, why not say instead “Perhaps you’d also find this helpful” and provide a link. This would accomplish the same thing without making the thread starter feel bad.
Or, If ya don’t want to discuss the subject again, move on to the next thread.
If you’re dying to debate a topic, you can always dig up the last thread started on that topic and simply add to it. That way, you at least show everyone that you’ve read all the arguments that have been made before. Also, you remind people what they’ve said in the past so it doesn’t feel like they have to be a broken record. I know it catches my eye when I see an old thread resurrected after a poster has new information or new insight.
Or, posters who are tired of a topic can just avoid that thread. Maybe that’s what I’ll do in that future.
I normally don’t do the “we’ve talked about this before” unless it’s one of those kinds of threads that lead to inarticulate, uneducated rants. iwire, I saw your dialogue as unproductive because rather than communicating effectively, you spent several posts trying to tell posters they were answering your question incorrectly. And then you acted as if our lack of response was something more than us just being tired of the topic. These things made me impatient with you, and I automatically pegged you as one of those inarticulate, uneducated ranters. Fortunately, tomndebb came to the rescue and your response to him helped to change my mind…
Then, of course, you face the wrath of the folks who scream “Why the hell are you resurrecting those old threads! Are you some kind of troll or something?”
And, while in theory, rekindling an old thread would allow everyone to review all the arguments that have already been made … how many times have you read someone on page 5 of a busy thread saying something along the lines of “Well, I couldn’t be bothered to read what everyone else had to say on this subject after the OP, but here is what I have to say.”
Sorry if it appears I’m stalking you and deliberately trying to contradict everything you have to say, monstro. I think everything you’ve said here has been reasonable, rational, and not unkind. I just wanted to point out the sort of “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation that exists here where so many people to be as much (or more) concerned about telling others how they should post rather than posting something of substance themselves (or listening to what others have to say in their posts.)
(and, no, I’m not saying you’re one of them. And I recognize the irony in criticizing how others post to criticize how others post.)
I realize that posting this may be tempting fate, but this dilemma actually has been discussed quite thoroughly in ATMB. The consensus is the following:
If a thread might have been started before, do a search first to find it.
If the previous thread is relatively recent, just add to it.
If you have reservations about bumping an old thread, start a new one including a link to the old one.
Keeps everyone happy.
People that post without reading the thread, as you described, YWalker, are morons. On my personal totem pole they rank below people that start threads without research on even the most done-to-death topics.
Amen. If you want to post a link to a previous thread, fine. But there’s no reason to berate the person who started the thread. The only exception I can think of is when the exact same subject comes up at the same time. A lot of times we have two threads on the same page both talking about the exact same thing. Then it’s confusing because you don’t know which one to post in.
