Search function

Off-topic
1

Prompted by some pertinent remarks in RSU:

Every few days, someone posts a question, and the first or second reply is along the lines of, “Use the search function, Bozo.”

The search function is very useful. However, many questions have answers which are matters of opinion (What is the best crank length? Is KH better than Onza? 24 or 20 to learn on?) and opinions change, especially in a field where experience is important. I for one am giving different answers, or more detailed or sophisticated answers, to some questions than I was giving a year or two ago.

Then there are “chinwag” questions. (Who’s the greatest rock band? Who would win a fight: Spiderman or Hulk? etc.) It really doesn’t matter if these have been discussed before. Can you imagine if you went into a bar with your mates and threw the floor open to the discussion of Chelsea-v-Man United; Marciano-vs-Ali; Bradman-vs-Lara;Welch-vs-Loren; politics, religion, etc.) and some boorish oaf said, “I think you’ll find we discussed that last March”?

And from a practical point of view, a search of the forums may produce 50 or 100 links, and it may be easier to ask a simple question than to search them all hoping to find the right answer.

OK, so no one wants an in box full of the same old same old, and I’m not against suggesting the use of the search function when appropriate. I think, though, that I prefer the constructive response of those who draw the poster’s attention to a specific thread (or threads) that might help, rather than simply suggesting they search.

This is a talking shop, a place for friendly discussion. Some of the people here may be new to the sport, new to computing, or new to the forum environment. We don’t want to put them off, because, who knows, they may be posting fantastic advice and stories of their own in a year or two.

End of rant.

2

well said.

3

THANK YOU for this post. Rep points aplenty.

4

You’ll find my opinions here http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45855
:wink:

Basically, I’m with you all the way, and would like to add that re-covering a subject also gives newcomers the chance to give their opinion on that subject (which may/may not be more valuable than those that have posted before) and gives new unicyclists the chance to advise other people.

Cathy

5

Good call.

6

thats why I never recommend the search button…if you just tell people to search before asking, then eventually every topic in the WORLD will have been covered, and this forum will have no purpose!!
so go ahead people, ask purposeless or repetitive questions.

7

And for god’s sake please don’t use the annoying search feature. It’s like doing your own research when there is an entire world filled with people who’s responsibility it is to push information into your brain and solve your problems for you.

8

i’m not saying you should never use it…honestly…i’m saying we shouldn’t bash on people who ask a perfectly legit question, such as, what crank lengths are best for whatever, or, KH or Onza, because who gives a crap if its already been talked about before.

9

I’m gonna agree and disagree with you on that.

If someone starts a thread asking, say, how to learn to ride, or how to hop, or something along those lines, then using the search feature is not only easier on the vets who would be the ones to answer the question, but it could potentially unveil 10-20 different threads, most of which can be filtered to your liking fairly easily via the Advanced Search feature, and that may offer many different opinions immediately, so you don’t have to wait on many different people to reply to your thread, which would take even longer with people like you who just suggest using a feature that would probably be more effective in the first place.

On the other hand, I also find it extremely irritating when someone starts a thread in JC such as, oh, say, ‘What’s your favorite movie?’, and some member who’s been around for a few years just points to an age-old thread on a loosely similar topic and just says “This topic has been discussed before.”

Mike used a very nice analogy in his OP that pretty much sums up the reason I disagree with you in some aspects, Greg:

10

I’m going to pay attention to your post and ignore your post.

11

Nice post Mike.

I’m going to continue in the way I’ve always treated ‘repeat questions’. If it’s an area where I feel confident in expressing an opinion I’ll answer the question and introduce the new user to the ‘Search’ function by linking to a results page on the relevant query.

I love the search function and have a lot of fun linking to old posts to spice up present discussion. Sometimes I get this wrong and have quite recently pissed someone off by not explaining that I linked to the previous discussion to futher the existing one and not with a ‘We discussed this last March’ attitude.

12

You are aware, hmm, that you do have the freedom to pick and choose which posts you want to respond to and which ones you want to just skip over. I’m not sure what ‘responsibility’ you have, other than what you put onto yourself. You’ve answered some question before, maybe more than once. Fine; you’ve done your bit. Ignore it. One of the rest of us who likes to talk unicycles will pick it up. No cost to you.

I don’t understand. Is there some reason behind everyone being so friggin’ cranky around here lately? We need more rules! We must have an anonymous mechanism to denounce those who chat in the wrong place or speak out of turn or don’t share our opinions! And even better if it spawns a social class system; we’ve all had equal voices here for way too long! I don’t like a certain kind of avatar, so never mind how many other people do, or that I’m perfectly free to not make my own that way - I must ban them, so that everyone has to be like me! We’re tired of actually talking to new people; we’ll just tell them to go to the library, and in the most sarcastic tone possible on top of it! We actually WANT all of this? Is just being friendly and tolerant more of an effort than it used to be? It seems so. I guess there’s no reason for things to be any different here than in the real world; it’s just disappointing.

13

‘Cranky’ might be a bit strong.
I think the forum as a collective is walking that very fine line at the moment.
It’s always been, and a lot of people want it to remain, a very helpful resource to help expand the sport of unicycling.
People who want that, don’t want to see it dissolve into a flaming pit of LOL!, AOL style. Many people here will attest to other fora where this happened and you need to only hang around on a couple of other ones to realise how kewl this place still is.
Keeping the banter/chat in RSU from diluting it’s value to the unicycling community is a tricky proposition at best and the increased posting-volumes are simply adding to the ‘problem’.
The forum has always been very lightly moderated and adding a ‘sticky’ thread outlining basic foraquette strikes me as an efficient way to share some information about how we ‘live’ here on our uni-island. It may be slightly impersonal, but people are accessing it via a computer so we’re not talking about seriously touchy-feely stuff to begin with.

That said, I do wish everyone who comes to these fora is made to feel as welcome as I was when I first got here.

14

Yeah, because that’s productive.

15

The responsibility may refer to the fact that he, or others, may have gone to an inordinate amount of trouble, as recently as last week, to answer that very same question. Reading that long answer would be much more beficial to the new person than a brief answer from the writer of the original post, or anyone else.

People can of course reinvent the wheel as much as they want, but this tends to dilute the “wealth of knowledge” we do have here, and can make things harder to find, while providing information of a lesser quality.

I highly agree with the idea of responding to old questions with one or more links to an old thread on the same subject, plus optional new text. And I admit I am usually too lazy to look them up myself. That is, to aid someone who should have searched in the first place, when they should be doing the searching, not me. I do plenty of searching for my own stuff.

The proper way to ank questions on a forum like this is to read a bit first, so you know the ways of the forum, read any FAQ that may be available about the forum, and then search. ONLY AFTER DOING THESE THINGS should one start a new thread. Wouldn’t that be considered generally responsible forum etiquette?

If people want, they can work to create “master threads” on certain topics, like crank length on Cokers for example. This would involve including links to all the (meaningful) older threads on the topic, possibly with a summary of each to aid people in their search. But for a master thread to be useful, people WOULD HAVE TO READ IT before asking the question anew.

I have no problem with people asking questions about new topics (if any), or variations on existing topics that are different enough to justify new threads. But that’s not what I’m talking about when I tell people to use the search. I only point people to the search function when they are on well-trodden ground, and when they could find lots of answers to their questions, and lots of variations on those answers, and lots of counterpoints, just by doing a little more reading first. Then if they STILL have a question, they have probably found a thread in which it would be appropriate to ask it.

I still think it might be a good idea to restrict peoples’ ability to start their own threads until they’ve established that they have some experience posting and/or using the forums. I’ve been using the forums for a long time, and seldom have the need to create new threads.

16

But only because you’ve been through the system, paid your dues, and presumably been helped along the way - as I was.

This was the first forum of this kind I had ever been involved in. I had been in newsgroups, and taken part in “discussion boards”, and so on. I am not a computer enthusiast, and I learn new tricks slowly. I cite my monochrome bitmap Paint avatar in evidence.

Casting my mind back, I think that as a neophyte, I would have found it a bit off-putting if I had asked a question, and received a curt “Use the search button” response. If someone had responded saying, “We’ve discussed this before, and you may find this link useful. Have you noticed there’s a search facility? The button’s near the top right the screen,” then I would have found that helpful and welcoming.

That’s my only point really.

No doubt this issue has been raised before.:wink:

17

Rats. I was trying to be lazy and now you’ve got me being productive. You’re a clever one. I have to spread good rep around before giving you some more. That irritated me, too.

18

Your sarcasm is really hard to pinpoint, and for that I congratulate you. :wink:

19

I have increasingly found the search function to be more than a hindrance than a help sometimes, as without hitting 5 buttons, setting half a dozen options and choosing your words very carefully you end up with 20 pages of irrelevant threads, usually consisting of MR and TTOMR, along with many other long threads that contain your search terms entirely out of context. A quick search is no longer an option IMHO, It takes a good half an hour of repeated searching and thread checking to find relevant material.

It has always amazed me that GILD can find 5 threads perfectly suited to any topic within 3 minutes of the thread starting, and had always assumed he was either some form of deity, or has kept a record somewhere, fully maintained by a range of woodland creatures…

On the current DudeWithASock/harper sarcasm battle, I find it highly amusing that a forum legend in his 50’s can have a light hearted exchange of wit with a 16 year old relative newcomer. This is the forum spirit we are trying to retain, and makes this small distraction to my day all the more inviting.

Loose.

20

I don’t find it all that unusual. I see it in the nursing homes all the time. :smiley: