# Repeating threads



## xarruc

Given that users in general dont bother to do a search for previous threads on the subject they are looking for, and because in many cases such a search would take too long, is there anyway it can be automated?

The spanish/english forum is moving so fast that the chances of a "qualified" person (should the question be remotely technical) is getting slimmer every day as messages get pushed onto page five and beyond within a matter of hours.

If wordreference did the search for the user automatically and then suggested answers, before allowing posting this may slow down new posting and improve the content quality. What do you think?


----------



## badgrammar

No idea if it's possible, but it's a good suggestion, considering that most new users do not hesitate to create a new thread to ask even some very basic questions...  If there were some kind of filter that would automatically do a search on a proposed new thread's title/content, then provide relevant links to the poster to check before submitting their new thread...  It might help keep things sorted without more work for the mods.

It might be nice, but is it do-able?


----------



## Etcetera

I'm afraid it may slow down the forum's speed. 
It's a good idea, though.


----------



## Jana337

badgrammar said:


> No idea if it's possible, but it's a good suggestion, considering that most new users do not hesitate to create a new thread to ask even some very basic questions...  If there were some kind of filter that would automatically do a search on a proposed new thread's title/content, then provide relevant links to the poster to check before submitting their new thread...  It might help keep things sorted without more work for the mods.
> 
> It might be nice, but is it do-able?


I don't think it is doable. If it were to be done, the load on the server would be enormou in my opinion. And wouldn't solve the ever-recurring problem with "how do you say", "translation request" etc. in thread titles. 

Seriously, interested users can easily find similar threads themselves and I don't think we can do much to make it easier for them.

Jana


----------



## Nunty

I'm also not sure it's accurate to say that "most users" don't do searches before I opening a thread. I search most of the time, and even if I do find a thread or two with my keywords, most often they do not answer the specific question I have. Your idea is interesting, xarruc, but I'm afraid I'm glad it's not doable.


----------



## Etcetera

I agree with Nun-Translator. 
It also happens that, while you're looking for an answer to a particular question, you come over a discussion which doesn't answer _your _question, but contains really useful information.


----------



## fenixpollo

Come over to Spanish-English General Vocabulary, ladies, and you'll see how many threads are opened with the exact same title as 2, 3, even 21 previous threads. 

Of course you and I and anybody who takes the time will research the question before posting. But most of the repeated threads, contextless queries and confusing thread titles are opened by newbies -- the people who come here, don't spend time observing, don't read the rules, ask a couple of questions, leave and don't come back.

Since an electronic filter won't work, the members have to work as the filter. Everybody chips in. That's what's great about this place!


----------



## xarruc

Is there anyway to process the dead threads into one automatically? I imagine it would be quite a challenge to set up, but incredibly valuable.

The problem, as I see it is the speed at which a question disappears, which results in a lower chance of an "'informed' answerer" seeing it and replying.

If there's no way to prevent new threads coming so fast, are there any other ways to improve the quality of the information available?

Another idea of mine would be to invite certain users to answer a specific question on a subject that they have shown interest in before. These 'guest answers' could be given prominence in the thread somehow. -However then you get into the murky realm of profiling users by their online behaviour and a lot of people, myself included, dont like to give too much information away on subjects such as hobbies.


----------



## cuchuflete

fenixpollo said:


> Of course you and I and anybody who takes the time will research the question before posting. _But most of the repeated threads, contextless queries and confusing thread titles are opened by newbies -- the people who come here, don't spend time observing, don't read the rules, ask a couple of questions, leave and don't come back._


 Oh! Those people.   They seem to be the same ones who periodically show up in Comments & Suggestions, proudly wearing their postcount >3<12  telling us that the forums would really be much better, based on their inexperience, if we were to add literary discussion, a sports section, a chatboard, and get rid of all of our excessive rules.

I agree with Fenix...we answer their questions as best we can, and if we are able to also explain Search, and give an example, in the same answering post, many of these newbies
will return and contribute.


----------



## xarruc

Is that an attack on me because I only have 50 posts to my name and dare to make a suggestion? How arrogant! I may not live just to surf this notice board but I have used it daily to help learn languages. Fancy telling somone else how to run their site. The cheek of it! And to think I only joined in August.

The notice board moves noticably faster than it used to and I find it less useful than it used to be. I offer up a suggestion for discussion and...

I'm sure you all do the best you can and wouldn't be conceited enough to claim it can't be done better. It was just a suggestion. On a discussion board.


----------



## fenixpollo

xarruc, cuchu's attack was in no way against you. Your suggestion is really a good one, and would be a major improvement to the forum if it could be made to work.  In my opinion -- and he can confirm or deny this -- he was venting another frustration about new members posting requests to open a chat forum or another forum on a topic not related to language. His beef is with people who ask for a chat forum (they usually are, by chance, new members)... his beef is not with new members who post in this C&S forum.

Thanks for the good suggestion!


----------



## cuchuflete

Xarruc,
There was no attack on you.  Your concern about the quantity of new posts, the speed of the forum, is completely correct.
Newbies—you have long passed this stage—tend to be like people in general. They don't read instructions.  I would rather help them learn how to find answers than have software that attempts to do that.  

Many of the first time members come to the forums from the dictionaries, which do suggest related threads.  That display of related thread topics doesn't seem to help the many who also don't use Search.  I'm not sure that there is a good solution for those who don't read what's already searched and displayed for them, other than to write individual messages that explain how to find something.

My comments about those who demand chat and other forum topics is based on the obvious fact that those who don't use Search have something in common with those who don't bother to read the forum Guidelines.  They show up, and without much effort to get familiar with their context, ask for what they want.


----------



## xarruc

ok, perhaps I'm a little grouchy. I'm tired and it's a fiesta tommorrow. Im itching to get out and hit the town.


----------



## panjandrum

xarruc said:


> Is there anyway to process the dead threads into one automatically? I imagine it would be quite a challenge to set up, but incredibly valuable. [...]


There is a process in the English Only forum to selectively merge more mature (not dead ) threads and add new threads to them.
Members with memories often post links to relevant earlier threads.
Mods with time and the inclination sometimes have a look at these and merge if appropriate.  It isn't always.  The result is a very long thread, though, and these can be very off-putting for someone looking for a short answer.
like (love, hate, prefer) + infinitive or + -ing form
...  has more than forty posts from three threads, and it is not the longest.  The difficulty is that the "golden post" could be #23.

I expect that even the limited amount of thread-merging that goes on in EO would be out of the question in busier forums.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

My suggestion might sound silly, but in my opinion the main problem with repeating threads is that the stickies at the top of each forum don't attract users' attention: most of the new members are too busy trying to find out how to open a new thread. (For example in the English-Italian forum there are still many people moaning because they don't know how to type accents on their non-Italian keyboard although Jana made it very clear and simple with a special sticky.. It means that they either didn't notice it (90%?) or they didn't read it (10%?)).
Stickies should therefore be posted in a different colour with a well highlighted "read *BEFORE* posting" at the beginning.


----------



## emma42

I agree with that suggestion about more visual stickies.  It's worth a try, no?


----------



## Nunty

Color me cynical, but I don't believe that even full-color, animated, reach out of the screen and grab you by the shirtfront stickies would be read by more than 40% of us.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Nun-Translator said:


> Color me cynical, but I don't believe that even full-color, animated, reach out of the screen and grab you by the shirtfront stickies would be read by more than 40% of us.



Well Sister, you might be right, but at least those who deliberately choose not to read the stickies before posting would feel a wee bit guilty..

What if every new member were "forced" to read through all the stickies and the forum rules and then agree with them exactly in the same way as you have to read the users licence before installing a new software, for example?


----------



## emma42

Neither do I, nun, but 40% is quite good, isn't it?  I wouldn't have put it as high as that, but it's all guesswork (on my part, in any event).

I just think it's worth a try.  For the sake of the lovely Mods.


----------



## maxiogee

Nun-Translator said:


> Color me cynical, but I don't believe that even full-color, animated, reach out of the screen and grab you by the shirtfront stickies would be read by more than 40% of us.



I agree.
Experience has shown me that people - the general throng out there, "us" en masse, don't read sings put out for their assistance and information. They won't see what they don't want to see.
You could write "free money - ask the man with me" in day-glo paint on a cow's flanks and send it down the main thoroughfare of many cities and people wouldn't see it.


----------



## TrentinaNE

Paulfromitaly said:


> What if every new member were "forced" to read through all the stickies and the forum rules and then agree with them exactly in the same way as you have to read the users licence before installing a new software, for example?


When someone signs up for a WR screen-name, s/he has to check a box saying that s/he agrees to abide by the rules. How does one add "forcing" to that? Maybe after that screen is submitted, the next one that pops up should say something like:​ 



> *Come on, we weren't born yesterday.*
> *Admit it: you didn't really read *
> *all those rules that quickly, did you? *
> *We're serious, buster. *
> *Pay attention to the rules.**
> One infraction, and you're out of here!*​*
> *


----------



## ireney

May I "second" Nun-Translator's post? You can also add an awe inspiring voice telling them to "READ THE STICKIES", followed by a sensual voice cajolling them to "READ THE STICKIES", and a friendly voice urging them to "READ THE STICKIES" to no avail.

I put "second" in quotation marks because I think 40% is too high. The only possible way for people to certainly "READ THE STICKIES" ( you never know, someone may pass through here and every little bit helps) is to make it impossible to post if you haven't read them (something I do not suggest by the way even if it is feasable; anyway, chances are someone would click on the link, have it appear and then go and post his/her question).

However every little bit _does_ help.

As for xarruc's proposal; I am not sure I would like something of the kind even if it was possible. I bet the automatic merging tool could in no way distinguish between two thread's that should be merged and two that may even have the same title but ask a different question.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

TrentinaNE said:


> When someone signs up for a WR screen-name, s/he has to check a box saying that s/he agrees to abide by the rules. How does one add "forcing" to that? Maybe that screen is submitted, the next one that pops up should say something like:​



Well, I'm sure you will pardon me Mrs Mod, but I couldn't remember to have checked that box when, more than two years ago (21st Sept. 2004) I signed up on this forum...


----------



## cuchuflete

Paulfromitaly said:


> Well, I'm sure you will pardon me Mrs Mod, but I couldn't remember to have checked that box when, more than two years ago (21st Sept. 2004) I signed up on this forum...



Time passes, and people forget not only what they have read, but whether they have ever read it in the first place.

This is a fine little example.  The rules make abundantly clear that, unless one clearly identifies the contents of a post as that of a moderator, or circumstances make it equally clear, the person posting must be assumed to be a forero, and not a Mrs Mod.  




> #49- Moderators are also forum members.  Unless they say otherwise, or it is clear from context, their posts are made as members.


----------



## TrentinaNE

cuchuflete said:


> The rules make abundantly clear that, unless one clearly identifies the contents of a post as that of a moderator, or circumstances make it equally clear, the person posting must be assumed to be a forero, and not a Mrs Mod.


Though I didn't say so explicitly, my tone/context of my previous post certainly had a _mod _flavor.  

But in any case, I'm a *Ms.* Mod.  

Elisabetta


----------



## Paulfromitaly

cuchuflete said:


> Time passes, and people forget not only what they have read, but whether they have ever read it in the first place.
> 
> This is a fine little example.  The rules make abundantly clear that, unless one clearly identifies the contents of a post as that of a moderator, or circumstances make it equally clear, the person posting must be assumed to be a forero, and not a Mrs Mod.



Elisabetta will always be a beloved Mod to me and she knows I was just messing..


----------



## cuchuflete

TrentinaNE said:


> Though I didn't say so explicitly, my tone/context of my previous post certainly had a _mod _flavor.



Ooooops!  I didn't notice.  The purple prose should have been a dead giveaway!


----------



## emma42

I read the Rules and Guidelines quite soon after joining.  I can't have been the only one.

If what others are saying here is true, why have any rules, guidelines, stickies and, indeed, this thread?

Things are worth a try.  It's no good just moaning about things and not doing anything about them.

 I absolutely insist that you do as I suggest!


----------



## TrentinaNE

<Mod hat on> It appears we may be able to implement the color sticky suggestion before too long. In the mean time, I posted an "Announcement" in the IT-EN forum asking people to read the Stickies before posting. It has been viewed 82 times as of this writing (of which 3 were my own clicks, and sevdral more, I'm sure, were by curious "regulars"). It hasn't stopped all newbies from leaping-before-they-look, but it may have helped. <Mod hat off>

Elisabetta


----------



## maxiogee

TrentinaNE said:


> It has been viewed 82 times as of this writing (of which 3 were my own clicks, and sevdral more, I'm sure, were by curious "regulars"). It hasn't stopped all newbies from leaping-before-they-look, but it may have helped.



I'm sure part of the problem is "I read that on the other Cult Disc / Eng Only forum, I'm sure that these ones here at It:En are going to be the same. Why bother?"

We could quite easily, I'm sure, edit the location of the "submit" button so that it has a label above it saying something like "If you've read the stickies and the FAQs, press this button to submit your message."
Then, when the hounds of hell round on some poor unfortunate who is posting the fiftieth query about why X isn't Y and if Z would do instead, they would have no excuse for their temerity.


----------

