# Frequently-raised topics: the perils of popularity



## Loob

After nearly a year in the forums, I'm starting to detect a paradox: the more popular a topic, the more likely it is that questioners will ignore past threads and post a new thread.

To explain...

The dictionary entries for popular topics inevitably have the longest lists of previous threads.

So when an forero with a question on a popular topic goes to the dictionary (in obedience to the rules) (s)he finds a large number of previous threads. But only someone with the patience of a saint would work through them all to see if his/her question is addressed. So what does the questioner do? Post a new question.

The same issue arises for respondents. More and more often, I look at a question and I think "surely that's been answered in a previous thread?" So I check with the dictionary, and sure enough there are many previous threads which *might* be relevant. But with rather less justification than the questioner, I think: "can I be bothered to read through all these previous posts to work out which one answers the OP's question?". And I answer my question with "life's too short" and respond to the OP's post, thereby re-inventing the wheel.

My concern is that as a result the numbers of previous threads on popular topics will continue to grow and grow. To the point where the thread-referencing function in the dictionary will eventually (soon?) be pointless.

Maybe that doesn't matter. But personally I think it does, given that WRF acts not only as a discussion forum for members but as an adjunct to the dictionary. And given also that many WRF aficionados never post, but use WRF simply as a source of information.

I'm not sure how we can resolve this problem. I've seen references to reporting past "dead-end" threads with a view to having them excised from the database. And perhaps we should also report past threads which have less-than-specific thread titles, so that they can be amended to reflect the content more accurately.

Does anyone else share these concerns? And does anyone have any ideas as to how to resolve the problem?


Loob


----------



## TrentinaNE

Great question, Loob. In some forums, the moderators (when they have time) "prune" the threads for some of those very popular words you describe, and for exactly that reason. But it's a very _ad hoc_ process, when we happen to come across situations that seem to need cleaning up and we happen to have time available just then. It might be a good idea for us to keep a running list of dictionary entries that need attention in this regard. 

In general, I think reporting threads and including very specific reasons (like the ones you've suggested:  too generic a title, old thread that's been superceded by better discussions, etc.) is helpful to the moderating team.  

Ciao,
Elisabetta


----------



## Paulfromitaly

What we try to do in the EN - IT forum is:

- We ask the posters to choose meaningful threads titles;
- We keep reminding them to use the WR dictionary or the search function *before *opening a new thread;
- We close every thread related to a topic that has already been discussed in an old thread, posting a link to the prior thread.

It's true that some foreros can't be bothered flipping through the old threads, but they usually change their mind when they realise that every time they do that and open a new thread, this thread gets closed  and therefore there's no use doing that


----------



## Loob

Many thanks, Elisabetta and Paul, for your answers. I shall start reporting past threads forthwith!

Could you just confirm, Paul, that closed threads don't appear in the dictionary's list of previous threads? It does make enormous sense, if so

Loob


----------



## Jana337

They do appear.


----------



## Loob

Thanks, Jana337.

So if we're trying to minimise the number of previous threads listed by the dictionary for popular topics, closing threads makes no difference? The mods have to delete a dead-end/unhelpful thread, rather than just close it?

Loob


----------



## Jana337

> So if we're trying to minimise the number of previous threads listed by the dictionary for popular topics, closing threads makes no difference?


Exactly. Unfortunately, a dictionary user can't tell whether a thread is open or closed.


> The mods have to delete a dead-end/unhelpful thread, rather than just close it?


I don't know how dictionary entries for other languages are consolidated but in the Italian forum, we delete closed threads after a week or two, so thread openers have enough time to read the explanation and the dictionary pollution is under control. We have been doing it for several months. Foreros are welcome to report old closed threads that they believe should not be in the dictionary.


----------



## nichec

Once I saw a new thread on EO and I was sure I had answered that very same question before, so I went looking for that thread, and I found lots of similar threads in WR dictionary.

I took time to read them all, thread by thread, then I posted the links to some of the threads, the ones I thought were related to the new question.

And guess what happened?

The questioner replied to my post and said "Please don't give me links, just answer my question, reading pages and pages of English gives me headache."

I was shocked, and my first reaction was "So what was I doing reading them all for you?" But then I thought the questioner had a point, as a beginner, surely he/she wanted nothing more than a simple, direct, straight answer, it would be even better if I had just answered yes or no.

The problem is, there is a reason why many people ask the same question, the question is tricky itself, after all those threads of discussion, who am I to give a conclusion? 

I started avoiding that kind of questions from then on.


----------



## TrentinaNE

nichec said:


> And guess what happened?
> 
> The questioner replied to my post and said "Please don't give me links, just answer my question, reading pages and pages of English gives me headache."


That was exceedingly rude, and I hope you reported the post.  

Elisabetta


----------



## kenny4528

I remember that at the time I joined in the EO, I learned from the Stickys to report the threads created against forum rules by using red triangle. I did report two threads I thought they were illegally started, but then I didn't receive any response and they still existed. I realized that the threads I considered against rules may be okay to others. Anyway, I have never reported since then. Instead, like Nichec, I provide some links I think useful to OP, and sadly some seem to dislike this way. I have to admit that in the days I just joined I also opened quite a few unnecessary threads which can find answers in the past threads, whereas as the more I know how this forum works, the more I learn how powerful *Look-up* can be. Under consideration, there seem to be some questions which are repeatedly posted inevitably such as topics related to _Tense_, _If_ or _Until_ etc. Alright, It seems so far I didn't come up with any solution but comments to this thread.

My first post in *Comments and Suggestions* is contributed to you and I hope it makes sense, Loob.

Cheers,

Kenny


----------



## cuchuflete

For those who read things with the words "Read me" in the thread title, there is this in EO:
<  READ ME FIRST - Forum rules, common questions, and resources.  >

Panjandrum has been kind enough to compile a list of some frequent topics.

*Questions that are frequently asked.*

He has provided links to lists of previous threads, all nicely labeled, about these topics. 

Like many other things with such useful titles as "Read me", it is not consulted by many.
Still, it's there for those who would take advantage of it.


----------



## mkellogg

I personally am hoping that a few new features that will be available with the next version of the vBulletin software (due around the end of January) will help us with this problem.


----------



## Loob

Nichec, Kenny, cuchu, and Mike

I'm really grateful for your comments.

Nichec, your post seems to me to add another reason why it's important to try to minimise past threads on popular topics and/or to make them more easily "navigable". If someone like you feels reluctant to respond to questions on frequently-raised topics, that's a great shame...

Kenny, I'm honoured that your first post in *Comments and Suggestions* was in response to a thread I started. Your post made huge sense!

Cuchu, I'm sure you're right that many people don't read "Read me" threads. I'm beginning to realise that many people also ignore links to previous threads posted in response to particular questions

And Mike, thank you for indicating that there may be sunny uplands ahead. All power to your elbow - thank you for having created something as extraordinary as WordReference.

Loob


----------

