# asking questions in existing threads



## _forumuser_

It's a fact: a large number of forer@s don't read old threads with double-digit responses. So if you post your query in an existing thread as policy recommends, you are likely to get a much slower response, or no response at all. It just happened to me in the EO forum, so I thought I'd share this piece of wisdom with you all. Have a great day everyone. 

18:20 Addition: I'm also concerned about the future of the WRF community. Once all the language questions will have been asked, the only new threads allowed will be of the less interesting, "please translate this for me" kind. This will no doubt spur a mass retreat from the forums. What are the thoughts in the high quarters regarding present and possible future problems with the "add query to old threads when the question has been already asked" rule?


----------



## jonquiliser

Language is a source of infinite question, the well never dries out! Fear thou not for the future of the forums!


----------



## _forumuser_

jonquiliser said:


> Language is a source of infinite question, the well never dries out! Fear thou not for the future of the forums!



Mock me not, Sir. For I spake verily.


----------



## Jana337

_forumuser_ said:


> It's a fact: a large number of forer@s don't read old threads with double-digit responses. So if you post your query in an existing thread as policy recommends, you are likely to get a much slower response, or no response at all. It just happened to me in the EO forum, so I thought I'd share this piece of wisdom with you all. Have a great day everyone.


Personally, I take this danger into consideration when I merge or delete. However, most posts that I stifle because of redundancy are merely an absolute repetition of something old, like "I couldn't help laughing".


> 18:20 Addition: I'm also concerned about the future of the WRF community. Once all the language questions will have been asked,


Yes, and there will be no new songs because we will run out of combination of notes. 


> the only new threads allowed will be of the less interesting, "please translate this for me" kind. This will no doubt spur a mass retreat from the forums.


I don't see it coming. Anyway, even if it were a likely scenario, would it be desirable to admit the umpteenth question about congiuntivo after sapere just to keep our addicted members busy?


----------



## jonquiliser

_forumuser_ said:


> Mock me not, Sir. For I spake verily.


 
 I most humbly serve you my apologies! I wished not to mock thee, but merely to offer encouragement in these times of uncertainty and doubts as to, shall the forums be or shan't they?


----------



## _forumuser_

Jana337 said:


> Anyway, even if it were a likely scenario, would it be desirable to admit the umpteenth question about congiuntivo after sapere just to keep our addicted members busy?



A little cynical, are we?  THere is something the forum gives you that you can't get from other platforms, and that is the thrill of interacting with other minds. When visitors will be able to find every or most answers in existing threads, this will no longer be a forum but merely a (very good) reference 'work'. That's what would concern me were I the one who first breathed life into this creature. I have ways to control my addiction.


----------



## TimLA

_forumuser_ said:


> A little cynical, are we?  THere is something the forum gives you that you can't get from other platforms, and that is the thrill of interacting with other minds. When visitors will be able to find every or most answers in existing threads, this will no longer be a forum but merely a (very good) reference 'work'. That's what would concern me were I the one who first breathed life into this creature. I have ways to control my addiction.


 
Hey FU!

I think Mozart's "Variations on a theme of 'Ah! vous dire-jai maman' " would be merged with
Twinkle twinkle little star!


----------



## Paulfromitaly

_forumuser_ said:


> It's a fact: a large number of forer@s don't read old threads with double-digit responses.



I'm really sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not going to be indulgent and let a thread, asking a question which has been asked countless times before, live for the sole reason that some foreros might be too lazy to read through long threads.
That's their problem, not mine.
Wouldn't you be puzzled as well if you looked up in a dictionary the verb "essere" and, instead of having many entries listed under the same main entry, you found the term "essere" repeated let's say 45 times, one for each different meaning?


----------



## Jana337

_forumuser_ said:


> A little cynical, are we?


Yes because there's something disturbingly ludditesque in your argumentation. 

Even if the threat of saturation were realistic (which it isn't in my opinion), I don't think it would be desirable to explain the same concepts over and over. I apologize if I am twisting your words but since you brought up the two topics in the same thread...


----------



## _forumuser_

Paulfromitaly said:


> I'm really sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not going to be indulgent and let a thread, asking a question which has been asked countless times before, live for the sole reason that some foreros might be too lazy to read through long threads.
> That's their problem, not mine.


 
Ciao Paul. The point I was trying to make is that the problem is rather the person who asks the question's ...



Paulfromitaly said:


> Wouldn't you be puzzled as well if you looked up in a dictionary the verb "essere" and, instead of having many entries listed under the same main entry, you found the term "essere" repeated let's say 45 times, one for each different meaning?


 
Good point. Look, I'm not saying that similar questions shouldn't be grouped together or that we shouldn't have a method to keep track of previously asked questions. I'm saying there's a flaw in our seemingly flawless "old questions in old threads" policy, and that is that new threads tend to get faster, better responses.Yesterday I posted a question concerning the usage of the word "housewife" in EO. It took over 30 mins to get a reply while in my experience, it never takes more than 3 with a new thread. So it dawned on me: something is wrong here. I leave to you what to make of it.


----------



## TrentinaNE

_forumuser_ said:


> It took over 30 mins to get a reply while in my experience, it never takes more than 3 with a new thread.


You're spoiled.    30 minutes for a response during what is the middle of the night in the U.S. is neither uncommon nor unreasonable.


----------



## _forumuser_

TrentinaNE said:


> You're spoiled.  30 minutes for a response during what is the middle of the night in the U.S. is neither uncommon nor unreasonable.


 
Now I'm spoiled! What's next?   TNE, you of all people should know that 30 minutes is way above average in EO.


----------



## cheshire

_forumuser_ said:


> It's a fact: a large number of forer@s don't read old threads with double-digit responses. So if you post your query in an existing thread as policy recommends, you are likely to get a much slower response, or no response at all. It just happened to me in the EO forum, so I thought I'd share this piece of wisdom with you all. Have a great day everyone.


I agree, it's a fact. That's why we are tempted to do multi-posting!

As for "redunduncy" (oops, "redanduncy"...oops, "redundancy". It's like "panjundram" or "panjundrum" or "punjundrum"), there are two kinds: *Good redundancy and bad redundancy.
*
*Good *redundancy is good for learners when one explanation is difficult to understand for them, and other members exlain it using different language or viewpoint.

For example, Firefoxbrand's and maxiogee's posts have a lot of idioms unheard of for ESL leaners. Reading and understanding their explanations, humors and wits require a lot of dictionary reference and thinking. However high in quality their posts might be, it's often tough to read for ESL students.

Besides such forer@'s posts, other forer@'s posts using simpler language help. Still, one member's explanation can be hard to understand because lacking on the part of ESL students of the knowledge of one particular grammar point, idiom, or word can prevent their understanding of the whole post. In that case, other member's posts using different wordings can help.

It often happens to me when one particular matter is hard to understand, even though a lot of helpful and kind members are helping me. Something must be lacking (words, idioms, some grammatical points I'm not aware of) that's preventing my understanding. In any case, it's often redundancy (from multiple forer@'s posts) that click me to understanding. That kind of redundancy may seem useless to advanced learners or native speakers, but that greatly helps less advanced learners. I'd like all of you to take it into consideration, and go easy on learners.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

_forumuser_ said:


> It took over 30 mins to get a reply while in my experience, it never takes more than 3 with a new thread. So it dawned on me: something is wrong here. I leave to you what to make of it.



Well, the only answer I can give you is: be patient, mate!
I reckon it's more reasonable that one forero (you in this case) have to wait let's say 30 minutes to get a reply (it's undeniable that members tend to reply to threads with few posts first) rather than force anyone who's performing a search to click and open dozens of threads with the same title in order to find the most comprehensive answer.


----------



## TrentinaNE

I think the lesson of this thread is that forum-users (in the generic sense ) should not assume that a thread with numerous responses is "spent."  If it's on the first page, open it and read the most recent additions, because they could contain a new question or clarification. 

Moderators read all threads, so we already know this.  

Also, as Paul said, long thorough threads about commonly used words and expressions are more helpful to folks who are using the dictionary than having to click on 14 threads that are each 4 posts long in search of meaningful insight.


----------



## cuchuflete

_forumuser_ said:


> Now I'm spoiled! What's next?   TNE, you of all people should know that *30 minutes is way above average in EO*.


_*emphasis added

*_
That is not a true statement.  Of the 20 threads on the main menu page of EO, as of less than one minute ago, 15 have not had a reply in the past 30 minutes.  There have been fewer than ten replies to all threads in EO in the past 45 minutes, and one perfectly clear thread with no replies was posted over two hours ago.   Response times vary greatly over the course of the day.  In some forums, it is not at all unusual for hours to go by before a new thread has its first reply.  Moderators frequently remove bumping posts by new members who have yet to realize that this is a forum, and not that other kind of quick reply venue.


----------



## papillon

If we imagine that at some point we will have discussed all the possible topics in a particular language, then surely, the first language forum to have run its course will be the Spanish _Vocabulario General_. With over a 200 000 threads and just over a million posts, it is most than twice the size of the next runner-up, _French English_ and seven times bigger than _English Only._ It is logical, then, to assume that any signs of degeneration (or redundancy), 
were they to appear, 
would manifest first in _Vocabulario General. _

Personally, while I only spend little time in that forum, I have the impression that the forum is thriving and not showing any symptoms of stagnation. What you do find is that multiple threads may treat different uses of a particular word. There are, for example over 20 threads with the word _mujer_ in the title, from _Mujer perfecta_ to _Eres una mujer rara_. Since these are different topics, understandably they get their own thread.

And if _Vocabulario General _doesn't seem to run out of topics, then what can we say of other forums? At present rate, it will take decades for the Slavic forum to even reach the numbers that _VC_ forum has today.

That's why I am not worried!


----------



## _forumuser_

cuchuflete said:


> That is not a true statement. Of the 20 threads on the main menu page of EO, as of less than one minute ago, 15 have not had a reply in the past 30 minutes. There have been fewer than ten replies to all threads in EO in the past 45 minutes, and one perfectly clear thread with no replies was posted over two hours ago.


 
Ciao Cuchu. My generalization was based on an admittedly limited amount of data. Surely I am in no position to say what I said is "true", but neither can you say it isn't unless you do more than a one-time 45 minute observation.  I stand by my statement that, in my experience, new threads tend to get quicker replies.


----------



## Jana337

_forumuser_ said:


> I stand by my statement that, in my experience, new threads tend to get quicker replies.


Maybe.  But if other users are like me, they are more likely to click first on an old thread they are subscribed to than on a brand new one.


----------



## EmilyD

Would it be possible to label threads ( *by forum*, not by date or number of responses) as they appear listed in the dictionaries?

I was trying to find the thread, titled *within, *which is in (within?) the English Only area, and discovered how many threads with the same title exist...

I greatly appreciate the patience of the veterans towards the newcomers...I hope you know that we're motivated [as Che said] by: "great feelings of love."

_Nomi_


----------



## TrentinaNE

I'm not sure what you mean by "labeling," EmilyD.  Here is the English definition entry for within, which includes all EO forum threads that have that word in the title.  What information would you like to see?

Elisabetta


----------



## EmilyD

Thanks Elisabetta,  as my son says:  "my bad". 

I like how before opening a thread, I can read an excerpt of it.  That is the case on the lists at the forums.  Could we add that to the lists underneath the definitions?

Although English is my first language and I am fairly coherent usually, I am a beginner in the language of computer descriptions/questions/et al.  

I will continue to subscribe to this thread.

_*Nomi*_


----------



## Jana337

OK, you mean that when you hover over a thread title, you see the beginning of the first post without having to click on it, right? It would be a cool feature to have in the dictionaries, of course. I have no idea about the technical requirements etc. In the forum, it seems to be a part of the software.


----------



## EmilyD

Yes, Jana337, you explained it far better than I.  Grazie (sp?)!

Nomi


----------



## TrentinaNE

Jana337 said:


> OK, you mean that when you hover over a thread title, you see the beginning of the first post without having to click on it, right?


I hadn't even realized that functionality existed.    Now I get it.  

Elisabetta


----------



## lablady

EmilyD said:


> I like how before opening a thread, I can read an excerpt of it. That is the case on the lists at the forums. Could we add that to the lists underneath the definitions?


 
This excellent suggestion has come up previously. Click. See post #12 for a pretty good explanation of what it might entail.

The servers already seem to have a lot to do when the forums are busy. Though I also would like the "hover" feature, I wouldn't want to increase that load.

We are getting off topic. Please excuse diversion.


----------



## panjandrum

This is a very interesting thread, because I've been wrestling with this question over recent ... days, weeks... months?

I understand clearly forumuser's point.

At one time, it seemed to me to be very sensible to merge all the threads about - let's say about the possessive of proper nouns ending in s or z.
For a long time that seemed like a good idea.

More recently, and with the dictionary search facilites that Elisabetta has mentioned in mind, it has seemed better to rationalise the thread title and post on the thread to indicate that similar threads exist.  That allows for today's thread to become part of the corpus of knowledge, points today's poster to the existing corpus, and allows for today's question to attract a specific answer. Hence, both of these threads are still around.
Possessive - Charles' Or Charles's?

Possessive  - of names ending with s

The consequence is that there is some duplication of comment.  That is sad, in a way, but it is also inevitable because many will not read the preceding 100+ posts on a long cumulative thread anyway.

That covers "another thread on a theme that has been discussed before" - as above, or "do collective nouns take singular or plural verbs".  But it doesn't cover all repeat threads.  

Sometimes a topic is specific rather than thematic and a new question really needs to be either merged with the old or closed and pointed at the old.  I had an example today.
GB or UK?
This is a long and complex topic with many directly-related side issues.  
I couldn't bear to repeat all the stuff I had said before, yet it did not seem sensible to plonk this thread on the end of a previous one.  So I posted a link from it to 
*     Great Britain and its countries* 
and closed it.

I think the forums' approach to this issue needs to be flexible; needs to respond appropriately to the particular topic, and needs to take into account the evolution of the forums themselves.

When I think of all the fun I have had discussing various quirks and corners of language, I feel very reluctant to suggest that newer members should be deprived of that kind of discovery.  Yet it seems careless of all of us not to exploit the accumulating wisdom.

Exit at this point, not having come to any clear conclusion, but still searching for what's best. But before I go, have a look at this list of threads on collective nouns in EO:
Collective nouns - Management - plural or singular?
Collective nouns - <effluent, effluents>
Collective nouns - has/have -  is/are?
Collective nouns - staff <is, are> ...
Collective nouns - data <is, are> ... ?
Collective nouns - data <is, are> ...
Collective nouns - People <say, says> ...
Collective nouns - the team <is, are> ... ?
Collective nouns - a group <has, have> ... ?
Collective nouns - the delegation <visit, visits> ... ?
Collective nouns - the public <has, have> .. ?
Collective nouns - the public <is, are> ... ?
Collective nouns - the family <has, have> ...?
Collective nouns - bands - Westlife <is, are> ...
Collective nouns - The government <has, have> ...
Collective nouns - the majority <is, are> ... ?
Collective nouns - ... <says, say> many people.
Collective nouns - the band <is, are> ... ?
Collective nouns - the majority <is, are> ... ?
Collective nouns - the police <is, are> ... ?
Collective nouns - the couple <was, were> ... ?
Collective nouns - a council <is, are> ... ?
Collective nouns - The staff <is, are> ...
Collective nouns - the government <is, are> increasing ...


----------



## Jana337

Very true. With grammar topics, we go the same way in the Italian forum - a grammar label and some specification.

Congiuntivo - choosing the right one
Congiuntivo - examples
Congiuntivo - examples
Congiuntivo - examples (volere, preferire)
Congiuntivo - I can't believe that three months have passed since I was in Italy.
Congiuntivo e indicativo dopo sapere, credere, pensare
congiuntivo in 'relative' clauses
Congiuntivo in the first person: Spero che non abbia fatto/di non aver fatto troppi sbagli!
Congiuntivo presente & passato remoto
Congiuntivo with "non so": Non so se quello che tu dici sia/è vero.
Congiuntivo/di+infinito (espressioni impersonali): sembra che esista/sembra di esistere
Congiuntivo/indicativo: E' rassicurante sapere che, a quanto pare, non si traduca/traduce
Congiuntivo: è ovvio, è ironico
Congiuntivo: I think you're the only one who understands me
Congiuntivo: Non sono il tipo di persona chi ripete/ripeta pettegolezzi
Congiuntivo: scrivo questa email in inglese cosicché tu possa practicare
Congiuntivo: Voglio dirvi ciò che penso prima che voi ve ne andiate
Future or present tense in the congiuntivo: Mi sembra che non vengano/verrano
How to use il congiuntivo
Hypothetical situations - congiuntivo and condizionale
If I can find a chep flight - congiuntivo imperfetto
Il congiuntivo presente
Imperfetto come condizionale/congiuntivo - se avevo il tuo numero lo usavo/se avessi il tuo numero, lo userei
La concordanza con il congiuntivo imperfetto
superlativo + congiuntivo: è l'idea più stupida che io abbia mai avuto


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Well Mr Panjandrum, since we're not chimps ( are we? ) our mental faculties give us the  opportunity to decide whether to merge 2 threads or not, depending on the topic, the length and the relevance of the threads, that's what we all do I guess and that's what you meant with being flexible.
I suspect there's not "a best solution", however I personally try to merge as much as possible.
Something clever that I rarely do, but I should do more often is changing the thread title after the merging, so as to make it a valid title for both the original and the merged thread.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I have to admit when I see threads with more than about 3 pages I don't read them, I know it's quite lazy of me but I just really don't like doing it, I generally see that it would be a comment about someone elses post to an answered question, and don't really assume a fresh question will be in there to answer, and seeing as I haven't participated in the thread it doesn't really interest me that much.

I do understand exactly where you are coming from forumuser.


----------



## Jana337

> I have to admit when I see threads with more than about 3 pages I don't read them


Are you sure you mean 3 pages? That's up to 60 posts and we've had exactly 10 threads that exceed the limit in IT-EN. 

Some stats (to see the extent of the problem): More than 97.5 % of IT-EN threads have less than one page (20 posts and fewer). Almost 95 % of IT-EN threads have 15 posts and fewer.


----------



## lsp

It sometimes seems that threads merged without clear evidence of the merger result in the most numbing repetitions. 

If a new thread with no replies is added to an existing thread - without a clear callout of the mod's action - it appears that people jump to the conclusion that the previous 0 - 60 replies didn't answer today's new post, so people launch into "being helpful" in ways already covered in earlier posts. In short, I think mergers need to be identified clearly.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Jana337 said:


> Are you sure you mean 3 pages? That's up to 60 posts and we've had exactly 10 threads that exceed the _*(that?)*_ limit in IT-EN.
> 
> Some stats (to see the extent of the problem): More than 97.5 % of IT-EN threads have less than one page (20 posts and fewer). Almost 95 % of IT-EN threads have 15 posts and fewer.



Recently it seems as the merging seemed to be booted up a notch, a lot of old threads are coming back and it's usually the red letter that indicates a heavily discussed topic, I didn't know the stats were so low on the big threads though, I must just glance at the wrong 5% when I'm on here!

And also the threads in CD, where I know I shouldn't be Pages and Pages and Pages just puts me off reading, I need to be more patient I know, I'll work on it


----------



## Jana337

Alex_Murphy said:


> Recently it seems as the merging seemed to be booted up a notch, a lot of old threads are coming back and it's usually the red letter that indicates a heavily discussed topic


The red envelope means that the thread has more than 15 replies or more than 150 views (or both). Old threads are invariably red because they have been opened by hundreds of people who found them in Google or elsewhere. Example.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I only just realised I always look at the "views" and assume, without looking at the number of replies, hmm, I guess I really am _that_ impatient, but thanks for pointing it out!


----------



## zazap

Hello, it's me again. Jeje. I came to complain (sorry). The thing is that as all good forer@s, you know, I check existing threads before opening a new one. Often I find a thread of interest, but that doesn't necessarily provide me with the answer I'm looking for. So instead of opening a new thread, I post in that one kindly asking for you guys's help. And then what happens? Nobody answers!!!
So I would like to ask you all to please check out threads even if they seem to have been answered...Especially when it's me posting, of course. You should all always check everything I post...

No seriously, it's a bit frustrating. Look at my poor requests here and here.(English Spanish forum). Are they that bad or that misplaced?
Thanks in advance for all your input, zazap.
(Hopefully someone will read this old thread...)


----------



## DearPrudence

Zazap, you're not alone!!! Je me sens moins seule 
I have exactly the same problem.
Most of the time, when there are quite a lot of posts, people won't read the thread just thinking there is nothing new to add (+ go the drag of rereading the whole thing for fear of repeating what's already been said*).
Sometimes I regret there is not a kind of device, a light or something to show that there is still a question not answered.
Once I have found a thread with a final question which had never been answered & I did it only one year later 

(* I've already said it I think but I have seen in 2 threads a final post added months after with exactly the same answer as in a previous post & even in the very last post! )


----------



## jonquiliser

DearPrudence said:


> Sometimes I regret there is not a kind of device, a light or something to show that there is still a question not answered.



This would be so good - a little box to tick, indicating you're not satisfied yet with the answers! 



DearPrudence said:


> (* I've already said it I think but I have seen in 2 threads a final post added months after with exactly the same answer as in a previous post & even in the very last post! )



Seen that a lot too. But in the end, I suppose I prefer that to unanswered questions. 

Ps; zazap, clever way of luring people into the threads   If I'd know the answers, I'd help you, but...


----------



## zazap

jonquiliser said:


> Ps; zazap, clever way of luring people into the threads   If I'd know the answers, I'd help you, but...


Yeah, my next option is bumping the thread...How uncool is that?


----------



## DearPrudence

jonquiliser said:


> This would be so good - a little box to tick, indicating you're not satisfied yet with the answers!


Note the "I regret" because I know it's not practical 
But sometimes at the end of a thread, you ask a question that is not answered at all, I don't really know what you're supposed to do.
I think that once I deleted my post after a few hours (more than 12) & posted a new thread where I get an answer within a few minutes    
I'm not scared of waiting for a couple of days but I was rather afraid it would never been answered at all ...


----------



## zazap

DearPrudence said:


> I think that once I deleted my post after a few hours (more than 12) & posted a new thread where I get an answer within a few minutes


Note the "I think"...
Thanks for the suggestion on how to behave... I'll have to do that in the end.
Still a shame though.


----------



## sam1978

I take up this old thread again because I noticed just what Forum_User noticed before...
Actually I didn't undestand every replies of this thread... I understood too little! 
So, I think that we could find out a solution about the problem, but I don't know how...
For example, when we must take up a long (hot) thread, we can contact some moderators who could change the colour of the title or something similar,... I don't know...


----------



## LV4-26

Let me state, first off, that I strongly support the "1 topic=1 thread" philosophy.

However, I thought I too had to share my experience on the subject.

It  happened to me twice in EO, I think. I asked my question at the bottom of an existing (old and long) thread. And I never got any answer.
When I start a new thread, I always get an answer, always in less than 10 minutes.
I can understand that people be tempted to create new threads even when it doesn't seem totally appropriate.


----------



## sam1978

I totally agree with you! Just this thread itself is an example! Nobody answers... 
I think that we should find a solution about this problem...


----------



## TrentinaNE

sam1978 said:


> I take up this old thread again because I noticed just what Forum_User noticed before...
> Actually I didn't undestand every replies of this thread... I understood too little!
> So, I think that we could find out a solution about the problem, but I don't know how...
> For example, when we must take up a long (hot) thread, we can contact some moderators who could change the colour of the title or something similar,... I don't know...


 
Or use "report-a-post" to bring it to the mods' attention, and we can either respond to the thread or bump it, as appropriate. But please wait until at least 24 hours after posting your message to see if there are replies. 

By the way, this happens to me quite often, so I understand first-hand the dilemma. 

Elisabetta

Puoi anche usare l'icona di Report-a-Post per sottoporre alla nostra attenzione che non hai ricevuto una risposta, e poi possiamo rispondere nel thread o tornarla in cima alla pagina. Però aspettate almeno 24 ore dopo aver aggiunto il tuo messaggio al vecchio thread per vedere se ci siano delle risposte. 

In ogni caso, questo tipo di esperienza accade spesso a me, quindo conosco bene la problema.


----------



## Philippa

lablady said:


> This excellent suggestion has come up previously. Click. See post #12 for a pretty good explanation of what it might entail.
> The servers already seem to have a lot to do when the forums are busy. Though I also would like the "hover" feature, I wouldn't want to increase that load. We are getting off topic. Please excuse diversion.


jeje!! 'Excellent suggestion'  Thank you lablady for remembering my thread and linking to it. Mike never posted an answer in that thread, but I did ask him in a PM or email about it and apparently it isn't feasible.

Back to the topic then (a nice safe policy!). When I've asked questions at the end of an existing thread recently, thinking that they're very strongly linked to a previous thread they've been 'modded' away to form a separate new thread. I agree that when you search it is better to have the same word in different sentences separately, even if it's practically the same context. I started some grammar threads, 'por and para' and 'subjuntivo' ones for example, that I kept going back to and asking new questions in (like my own personal foros ) - I wish I could separate them now!

Saludos
Philippa


----------



## sam1978

TrentinaNE said:


> Or use "report-a-post" to bring it to the mods' attention, and we can either respond to the thread or bump it, as appropriate. But please wait until at least 24 hours after posting your message to see if there are replies.
> 
> By the way, this happens to me quite often, so I understand first-hand the dilemma.
> 
> Elisabetta
> 
> Puoi anche usare l'icona di Report-a-Post per sottoporre alla nostra attenzione che non hai ricevuto una risposta, e poi possiamo rispondere nel thread o tornarla in cima alla pagina. Però aspettate almeno 24 ore dopo aver aggiunto il tuo messaggio al vecchio thread per vedere se ci siano delle risposte.
> 
> In ogni caso, questo tipo di esperienza accade spesso a me, quindo conosco bene la problema.


Ah, ok! It's a solution! 
Thank you veru much! 

I'd advice the moderators to add this message to the rule ("Read before posting!")...


----------

