I think a part of this happening is newbie frustration with the search function. I am well aware of the situation here regarding overtaxed hardware, etc, and am not slamming that.
What I mean is, many newbies here are veterans on other MB’s (something I think many people here don’t consider) that for whatever reasons have much better servers than the SDMB. They are used to doing a search and having results pop up immediately. We want shit now!
If a program takes 10 WHOLE SECONDS to load, it seems like a lifetime. Just as if a newbie has to wait 10 or 15 (or longer) seconds for the search to take, they may well say “Fuck it, it’s jammed” and go ahead and start the redundant thread.
This happens most frequently in GQ, I believe, where many people register to ask a specific question. I will admit that if I was a newbie here, and attempted a search, I would probably abort it if it took over 30 seconds.
If you don’t believe how much a few seconds matter, launch a program you think takes a long time to load and time it. You might be surprised.
Again, I am not ragging jdavis et al and the fine job they do keeping this board operating, but just offering a possible reason for this happening.
Searching for threads isn’t always that simple. Sometimes I can’t find anything, even posts I started in specific forums with specific words in the title. I am prepared to accept I’m an idiot, but I don’t think the fact that someone didn’t find a previous discussion is indicative of not looking for previous discussions.
Guilty as charged, but I think there is a huge difference between somebody new to an issue starting a thread and somebody recycling their same old shit again a scant 3 months after they did their original one. Plus, there are some topics, drug legalization is one of them, that are so ridiculously overdone it’s annoying.
I got to this thread from a GD post on drug legalization - an issue of interest to me. Moreover, an issue that has been discussed here - not just once - but a number of times. The OP in this most recent thread did not raise any new “twist” on the topic. It does not cite any recent development making this topic especially topical. The drug thread was a pretty extreme example, because the same OPer previously raised the same issue in a separate thread. What a tool!
I have taken the time to compose and defend my thoughts on this - and a few other - issues on these boards over the past couple of years. And my underlying position on this issue has not changed. I have no reason to think that revisiting this topic will result in a more trenchant exposition than my previous effort. In one way, a link to the prior thread is a way to bring my thoughts to the present table. To not be excluded from the present discussion, simply because I participated in the identical discussion in the past.
If someone comes to the boards and urgently desires to discuss a pretty basic phiosophical/political/behavioral issue, fine. However, I see no reason why they should not do a brief search, to see how recently/frequently it was addressed.
Moreover, folks in GD tend to expect a little more than simply off-the-cuff posting. I feel it is entirely appropriate to resond to Gee whiz, I wonder why…? OPs with the observation that we’ve been there, done that.
In other words, let those of us who have been here for a while know why you did not understand or accept what we just finished saying in an easily locatable thread. I’m not saying my posts all contain wisdom for the ages. But we’re talking about an easily accessible search function.
If you really care what I think, take a look at the prior threads. And if you want to continue that discussion in a new thread - fine. But at least acknowledge the heavy lifting that has been done already.
At the same time, reference to a previous thread should not be done insultingly. IMO, if such correction discourages a newbie from participating on the boards in the future, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
As with so many things, it’s a balancing act of style and tone, put into a context of conflicting needs.
A newbie can look at a topic, even if it’s been flogged to death here, but it’s new and exciting to that person. Maybe we’ve discussed it, but they haven’t had the chance yet.
So, in all fairness, what’s the person to do? We discourage bumping old threads out of consideration for pure length, even if nothing else went on. (Tactfully phrased, hmmm?) To be sure, some topics have been ridden to death and back, but they’re mostly things without clear, definable answers, i.e. they’re never going to shelved away as “solved”.
Linking back to previous threads, IMO, provides a valuable reading list, but it’s unfair, and unproductive, to do it in such a way that implies, “we already talked about it and we’re tired of it, so be quiet.” Very possibly no earth-shaking new insights will result from new discussions–pretty high bar, that–but if the topic is still “juicy”, there ‘tis. Let the topic itself determine the level of discussion. If this place is about anything, it’s discovery. Previous discussions can be valuable, but it just isn’t the same as taking an active part. We have too many valuable new posters comin’ on to pour cold water over 'em willy-nilly. Veteran posters who’ve already said their piece can cite back, then sit out the latest round or wade back in as their interest dictates.