Why do people get so agitated if you ask a question that was dealt with in some thread 18 months ago?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I've made that mistake before, and the swiftness and severity with which someone produced the relevant link was amazing--like he'd been hiding behind the bushes the whole time just waiting to pounce. Is it really that tragic if some topic gets a second go-around?
Let me guess--there was already a thread on this topic in March of 2002.

― merritt ranew (merritt), Sunday, 15 May 2005 16:43 (twenty-one years ago)

There have been several threads like this, yeah!

The point is really that ILM is not like USENET or other bulletin boards, where old threads can't be revived. As soon as someone adds something to an old thread then it goes straight to the top of New Answers, which is the page most people look at all the time.

So basically, it's nice to keep old threads going - keeps all the talk on a subject together, stops old hands feeling like things are just going round in circles, gives ILM a shared past.

Plus when you want to look back on an old thread for something someone said, it helps not to have to look through a hundred different threads all about Neil Young's Greendale.

A lot of people get pissed off if you start a thread about an artist that would have been easy to find by doing a thread title search (which unlike the full text search is quick and allows searches on words as short as you like).

I think if you start a thread on a more abstract topic and someone provides a link to a thread asking the same subject, it's not really them being pissed off - it's just a service. Like "Hey - since this topic interests you, here are several things people have written about it that you'll find of interest".

― Alba (Alba), Sunday, 15 May 2005 16:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Sometimes new threads are started because old ones are too long and take ages to load. As most people now know, you can go into Settings and choose to only display the last 50 (or 20, or 100) answers by default, so this often isn't really necessary either. But some threads do reach a point where they're so long that a new one is handy, just cause sometimes you want to look back at the 'hidden' older answers and that takes forever. Also, really really long threads put off new people I guess.

― Alba (Alba), Sunday, 15 May 2005 17:01 (twenty-one years ago)

From the FAQ:

Who can ask questions? Do I have to wait before I ask one?

Anyone can ask a question, and you don't have to wait before you ask one. You might find though that your question has already been asked. If this is the case somebody will probably link to the old thread - this is not meant to be rude or dismissive of your question and please don't take it as such! It just keeps things more efficient.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Sunday, 15 May 2005 17:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I think people have a right to get pissed off when three threads a day get started about Antony and the Johnsons.

― Roadkill Bingo (Roadkill Bingo), Sunday, 15 May 2005 17:06 (twenty-one years ago)

all in the sake of efficiency, thank you.

― cutty (mcutt), Sunday, 15 May 2005 17:07 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm sure there is a thread on this already?

― cutty (mcutt), Sunday, 15 May 2005 17:07 (twenty-one years ago)

I've made that mistake before

once, and nobody got agitated

― fe zaffe (fezaffe), Sunday, 15 May 2005 17:08 (twenty-one years ago)

PS.

Referring people to previous threads repeating the topic: Classic or Dud?
Referring to previous threads as a response to questions - C or D?
meta-question: New threads for old?

― Alba (Alba), Sunday, 15 May 2005 17:18 (twenty-one years ago)

haha

"meta-questions: c/d"

― sleep (sleep), Sunday, 15 May 2005 17:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, 9 times out of 10 the search function either doesn't work at all or just sits there spinning it's wheels for me.

― Austin Still (Austin, Still), Sunday, 15 May 2005 21:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah - you either have to search on an unusual word or use the thread title search box, searching for a word that's likely to appear in the thread title. This is pretty straightforward for threads about an artist or particular record.

The thread titles are indexed as exact character strings and are quick to search - you're v.unlikely to get the spinning wheel thing.

― Alba (Alba), Sunday, 15 May 2005 21:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Alba OTM. I've said enough on earlier threads about this subject.

This is a very large board with lots of users, and it's more manageable if people revive threads.

― RS_LaRue (RSLaRue), Monday, 16 May 2005 13:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Woah, I've never used the "new answers" section. I'm converted!

― Jay Watts III (jaywatts), Monday, 16 May 2005 13:50 (twenty-one years ago)

We're all very busy people - do you really think none of us have anything better to do all day than just hang around here discussing music-related trivia?

Oh, wait, hang on a minute....

― Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Monday, 16 May 2005 13:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Woah, I've never used the "new answers" section. I'm converted!

ILX doesn't really make much sense unless you use the new answers section!

― cutty (mcutt), Monday, 16 May 2005 13:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Sense? What is that?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 16 May 2005 14:00 (twenty-one years ago)

In what sense?

― Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Monday, 16 May 2005 14:01 (twenty-one years ago)

in that you are limited to what has recently been posted instead of every thread that has been revived. no way to track what people are discussing unless it was a new thread.

― cutty (mcutt), Monday, 16 May 2005 14:02 (twenty-one years ago)

(Cutty, I think we know this and are pulling your leg.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 16 May 2005 14:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Alba and the Johnsons.

Well, it has just turned 4 o'clock. That's the best I can do.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Monday, 16 May 2005 14:06 (twenty-one years ago)

i knew you were joking, ned! wasn't sure about stewart, though.

― cutty (mcutt), Monday, 16 May 2005 14:12 (twenty-one years ago)

cutty, that comment is so Sensist.

― AaronK (AaronK), Monday, 16 May 2005 14:14 (twenty-one years ago)

"i knew you were joking, ned! wasn't sure about stewart, though."

I was talking to Ned!

― Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Monday, 16 May 2005 14:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Wait a second, but then you miss out on all the new posts and can only respond to stuff that people are already actively discussing...

― Jay Watts III (jaywatts), Monday, 16 May 2005 14:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Um, those are the new posts.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 16 May 2005 14:29 (twenty-one years ago)

(If you mean new *questions* though ;-), those are added to the new answers page shortly after they are posted.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 16 May 2005 14:30 (twenty-one years ago)

I shouldn't have woke up this early.

― Jay Watts III (jaywatts), Monday, 16 May 2005 14:32 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.