# Many existing threads



## Alxmrphi

I resisted the urge to post it in the original thread.



TrentinaNE said:


> And there are many existing threads about this topic, so we don't need to digress here.
> 
> Elisabetta


 
 Do you not agree that in a lot of circumstances relating to one topic/sentence that it might be easier to understand an answer specifically designed for the situation? 

 Asking a question about something in the context, where you obviously don't understand what's going on, is it the best idea to open pages and pages of intense discussion on the topic using examples that might have much different contexts that would very easily confuse the person asking the question?

______________________________________________________

Many times when I have been staring at a sentence not being able to make sense of how the words work together, a common reply is about 50K of other threads with totally different situations and questions about the word, that I find quite a lot of the time is* very very unhelpful* and only seeks to confuse the person who is asking the question.

I admit sometimes it can offer a whole new understanding of the word, but when you resort to asking here where your mind is so fragile in trying to get sense out of something, like trying to get blood from a stone, then again, I can see if a context is similar, it can be helpful (as intended) but very rarely is this so.

I'm sure someone would like to challenge my view and hopefully others agree, but I'm kinda getting worried that this is usually the point of people's reply to some questions, to refer them to another thread, and this is not how I was helped when I came here, and I hope people aren't going away more confused because someone took the "search previous threads" route instead of adressing the question at hand.


----------



## Jana337

> I'm sure someone would like to challenge my view


You are totally right: I don't think it would be desirable to expatiate on_ passato remoto_ in that thread. The person who raised the question got a succinct - and in my opinion sufficient - reply and a link to specialized, top-notch threads on _passato remoto_.

I don't think people are mindlessly referred to unhelpful threads. We mainly ask users to visit other threads in the following cases:
a) threads about love (difference between ti amo e ti voglio bene),
b) grammar topics (imperative),
c) totally identical requests (value added tax),
d) looming hijack of another thread.


----------



## Loob

I tried to start a new thread, but was unable to.

Do others feel that there are too many threads to keep up with?


----------



## swift

Loob said:


> Do others feel that there are too many threads to keep up with?


No.


----------



## velisarius

Too many threads with the same title. Much too many threads with the same title that don't even give a hint what they are about. 

There are 26 threads with the one-word title "prepositions"
prepositions
prepositions
prepositions
Prepositions
prepositions
Prepositions
Prepositions
Prepositions
prepositions
Prepositions
prepositions
prepositions
prepositions
prepositions
prepositions
Prepositions
prepositions
Prepositions
Prepositions
Prepositions
Prepositions
Prepositions
Prepositions
Prepositions
Prepositions
Preposition

I can't imagine anyone, especially a learner,  ever having the patience to click through them, so in effect they are useless for dictionary purposes - even though for all I know they may be extremely interesting.


----------



## eno2

More merging?  (Same titles, same subject matter). Delete newly opened  double threads? I try to react to - or bump-  an existing thread if possible, instead of opening a new one.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

eno2 said:


> I try to react to - or bump- an existing thread if possible, instead of opening a new one.


That's what everyone should do.
Search first and see if there's already a previous thread about the same topic. If so, read it carefully and tag on a further question only if necessary.
This is the best way to get a quick answer (if there's already an answer to the same question, I don't need to wait until my own thread gets replies) and avoid creating useless duplicates.
Meaningful titles would help too. ("help please!", "prepositions", "simple past", "what does it mean??" are not meaningful titles).


----------



## Ghabi

velisarius said:


> Too many threads with the same title. Much too many threads with the same title that don't even give a hint what they are about.


Ideally, there should be a special team devoted to the Herculean task of renaming and merging of the existing threads (it would be unfair to add further burden to the current moderators, who have already done so much and to whom we all owe a lot), but it's not likely to happen.

It's a bit of a vicious cycle, I guess: people will open only more duplicated threads, as they're unable to find what they want due to the existence of so many duplicated and misnamed threads.


----------



## eno2

eno2 said:


> More merging?  (Same titles, same subject matter). Delete newly opened  double threads?



I'll add: rename wrongly named titles. 

1 delete new doubles (a daily task) 
2 merge old ones (extra work....a big operation....)  
3 rename new ones if necessary. (a daily task)

Doing that, you solve a great part of the problem. 

The fora are extremely well patrolled. So 1 and 3 can be routinely done and they are already in some measure. 

The problem lies with 2


----------



## Paulfromitaly

eno2 said:


> 1 delete new doubles (a daily task)
> 2 merge old ones (extra work....a big operation....)
> 3 rename new ones if necessary. (a daily task)


We know that's what we should do and we try to do it the best we can. However this very taxing task is a waste of time if many people keep ignoring rule #1: SEARCH FIRST.
That's the real issue.


----------



## Loob

It's only part of 'the real issue',  Paul.

There are now so many past threads on popular topics - at least in some forums - that it's a hopeless task to "look for the answer first".

As I've said before, I don't know what the answer is.


----------



## eno2

Loob said:


> It's only part of 'the real issue',  Paul.
> .


The pop-ups when posting a new thread are very helpful in searching first. Reading all the existing threads is time  consuming indeed and sometimes impossible.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Loob said:


> There are now so many past threads on popular topics - at least in some forums - that it's a hopeless task to "look for the answer first".


True and why there are dozens of threads about exactly the same topics? Because too many people haven't searched before posting their own duplicate thread 
I agree with you that, at this point, there's no easy solution to the problem, however I don't think that allowing people to keep asking the same questions over and over again is a good approach.


eno2 said:


> *The pop-ups when posting a new thread are very helpful in searching first.* Reading all the existing threads is time  consuming indeed and sometimes impossible.


*I agree.*
Foreros don't need to read all the previous threads - Statistically they are likely to find a good answer without needing to go through the whole list of old discussions.


----------



## siares

Paulfromitaly said:


> I agree with you that, at this point, there's no easy solution to the problem


Has the upvoting threads idea been considered to put into practice? Or any at all?

It's interesting that you see the answer in people asking less questions (because answers are already there), rather than in asking via old threads.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

siares said:


> It's interesting that you see the answer in people asking less questions (because answers are already there), rather than in asking via old threads.


That would be fine too however, when a question has already been asked a hundred times the answer is very likely to be already there.


----------



## siares

I was interested more in my question - is there any solution being considered for making most informative threads to stand out?
Reporting by members is obviously not sufficient to make a mark.

(As an aside, when I open 10 tabs and a few of them are dead end, why can't I report them as I flick through them but need to wait ?)


----------

