Jump to content
 

Regular repeated topics and searching


Mod6

Recommended Posts

We Mods are generally a tolerant lot, but one phrase that is more likely to get our hackles up (or scales in my case) is the opening line "I don't know if this has been posted before, but ..."

 

This can often (but admittedly not always) be translated as "I suspect it has, but I can't be bothered to check first so I'll just go ahead and someone else can sort it out". That usually means the admin team or a helpful member.

 

Now, the search system is not perfect, but there are several options for filtering out what you don't need for what you want. Often the least successful is just putting a word in the search box and pressing 'go' - you will end up with a mixture of posts and topics all containing that word, often in a different context to what interests you.

 

Be smart - one option is to use the Google search option (press that grey button that says 'Forums' and there is a dropdown list of options including Google). This will give a more comprehensive and intelligible list than the simple word in the search box.

 

Another option is to use the advance search - that cogwheel next to the search box. Don't be put off by all the dialogue boxes, you can usually get what you need by selecting the 'search titles only' option and by default you will then get a topic list. After all, previous relevant topics will of course have included the important keywords in the title (won't they?).

 

Provided you are careful in selecting your search word or phrase then you have a good chance of finding what you want if it's already there. So, for example (and these are just a small selection of very frequent topics):

 

Fiddle yard cassettes - try using the advance search using either "fiddle" or "cassette"

Rolling roads - try searching on titles containing "rolling road" (just "rolling" will work but you get returns for rolling stock as well)

Blood & custard - either of those two words, or maybe "crimson" will generally work well

Steel vs nickel silver rail - go on, you try

 

Maybe the topics you find are not quite what you want - fair enough, so either open your new topic with "I've looked at <link> but I would still like to know ...", or better still just add your post to the end of the most appropriate existing topic.

 

But please make the most of the search system - it's not difficult, it's quick, and it benefits everyone by avoiding spreading what is essentially the same information across different topics.

 

Thanks if you've got this far.

 

Future instances of "I don't know if ..." may, at our discretion, get locked or binned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
Guest jim s-w

On this subject and with yet another 'better 00 track' thread cropping up again can we have the opposite of a follow button so that those of us who have been here more than a month can ignore threads that repeat over and over? It might serve the posters to know that people have seen this before?

 

Cheers

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

"Search is your friend" is a maxim touted on several other boards I visit. The funtionality of a search engine varies and it can take a not inconsiderable amount of time to trawl through a large number of results to see if your particular query / topic / concefrn has been addressed before. In some cases it may have been but not revisited for months or even years potentially placing it well down the list.

 

I understand both the workload this scenario places on the staff team and the relative frustration of the poster particularly when seeking a fairly swift response to a question.

 

Perhaps some middle ground exists. I already point new members in the direction of an older topic on occasions and I know many others do likewise. May I also suggest a tutorial on the use of tags may be helpful?

 

If I were working in a railway enquiry office (remember those?) I would be frustrated at being asked for the hundredth time for the next train to Little Nuttingford but as it would be a part of the job to do so each and every enquiry would be answered with as much grace as I could muster. Our staff team are not full-tome paid staff but there may be a way to offer more user-friendly support than simply locking topics.

 

Any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it might be veering back towards the 'library' idea again which never managed to quite get successfully off the ground. I did put forward an alternative idea the last time the subject of repeating topics and searching was discussed but one regular user totally misunderstood the concept and did the usual thing of putting their negative boot in and sucking all the enthusiasm out of the idea.

 

I do appreciate that searching on a subject and having to wade through lots of replies can be tiresome, but it does erk me a little that they expect someone else to do it on their behalf!

 

 

Edit: the idea, btw, was to find useful threads on certain topics and group them together. For example, if there are 3 or 4 threads around on 'better OO track' then a new thread is started, links to these key threads are placed within it, it's pinned somewhere (a 'Regular Topics' forum or something), and then when anyone starts a new thread asking 'What are the alternatives for better OO track?', someone can reply and direct them to the thread where the links are. Needs a bit of groundwork, but it could be done. I've done this on a car related forum in the past and it worked well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the complaint from Mod6. It's a forum - a disccussion forum. If someone wants to ask a question, even if it has been asked before, then why shouldn't they? No one is forced to read or reply and a question asked again can bring up replies from people who haven't responded before and thus bring fresh ideas and opinions into the mix.

 

In fact when it's something that is more opinion than fact then it's important that other responses are considered. What's the point in searching out old answers and taking only the opinions of those who have posted before?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I don't understand the complaint from Mod6. It's a forum - a disccussion forum. If someone wants to ask a question, even if it has been asked before, then why shouldn't they? No one is forced to read or reply and a question asked again can bring up replies from people who haven't responded before and thus bring fresh ideas and opinions into the mix.

 

I can see Mod6's point all too well sometimes when a question is asked which is exactly the same as one which was asked a matter of months, or even weeks, previously. I'm not muttering about similar questions coming of out different contexts in different threads - that to my mind is an unavoidable (and not in the least unwelcome) consequence of moving and developing discussions but some things come round as 'new' questions with such monotonous regularity you could almost be marking their next appearance on the calendar.

 

I think Google search can be part of the answer, erudite tagging might also work - if we remember to do it when creating a thread - and I think there's something in Dave's idea as well (it sort of fits with the way I'm thinking about tackling my photo/explanatory threads which will develop out of my scanning fest). But Google search is here and ready and it works fairly well (and it sometimes puzzles me why I can use it and find the answer to a question raised on here in a matter of minutes when someone else obviously couldn't :scratchhead:- must be all about asking the right question I presume).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a real problem with the "search and yee shall find" diktat. One, even I am currently struggling with, seems at the moment to to be ending in a post along the lines "I have searched but ...".

 

Some questions certainly repeat and are frankly a nuisance perhaps not so much for the admin team as much as to those who provide the answer. You either get the same answer(s) as posted before or slight variants or just in a different order and after a while the usual suspects answering start to get fed up or have frayed tempers at having to repeat themselves. More so when the topic has been very recently active.

 

But there are some questions where search produces so many results that refuse to be narrowed down, The question you know must have been asked before, it is so obvious yet in the overwhelming content that is RMWeb you just cannot find it. You could spend days looking through thousands of posts as the answer is probably in there somewhere, or you could spend that valuable time starting a quick new topic and doing so real modelling.

 

I think that sometimes the forum is not really the structure for a question and answer. Though some questions can develop into an interesting and profitable for all discussion on and around the subject, at other times all the questioner actually wants is a single concise answer. Sometimes in that case the topic could almost be locked after a reply, its further use being best improved by a good searchable title.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest jim s-w

I don't understand the complaint from Mod6. It's a forum - a disccussion forum. If someone wants to ask a question, even if it has been asked before, then why shouldn't they? No one is forced to read or reply and a question asked again can bring up replies from people who haven't responded before and thus bring fresh ideas and opinions into the mix.

 

Often replies to questions take a fair amount of work to put together. This is ok the first couple of times but after that it gets annoying. The point is a simple one, why should people expect this effort from others when they are too lazy to bother looking for themselves? If they have looked then ask simply join in the existing discussion.

 

Simples

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The Search facility can at times be an impressively useless tool indeed. Put "Andy Y" into the search engine for the members forum, and this is what you get.

 

"One or all of your search keywords were below 5 characters or you searched for words which are not allowed, such as 'html', 'img', etc, please increase the length of these search keywords or choose different keywords." How stupid is that?

 

That part of the search engine simply needs disabling on here. The Google option needs to be the default - which I think it now is if you search unintelligently, but trying to guess the forum where your query's answer might lie, i.e trying to be helpful by reducing options, instead actually reduces the chances of a hit. Mod 6 is right to ask for a commonsense approach, but common sense and the search facility have not been introduced to each other....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest jim s-w

or you could spend that valuable time starting a quick new topic and doing so real modelling.

 

Save YOUR valuable time finding out something you want to know but it's ok to waste a dozen people's time on your behalf?

 

Serously, if anyone thinks research is time wasted they are in completely the wrong hobby.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

The tools are there for people on both sides of the equation.

 

For posters:

Use meaningful titles

Use tags

 

For searchers

A search box

Google search for generic and short search term queries

Forum search for specific and exact searching, particularly within sub-forums.

 

Quite often the lack of results is because the searcher is using loose or incorrect terms. If I set out to look for my keys at home I don't start searching for the car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact when it's something that is more opinion than fact then it's important that other responses are considered. What's the point in searching out old answers and taking only the opinions of those who have posted before?

 

Fair point Dave, but (naturally enough) it works the other way when it's more fact than opinion. The facts get lost or buried, or (worse) superseded by incorrect or incomplete replies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I set out to look for my keys at home I don't start searching for the car.

Well, if you were my wife this morning, you wouldn't find your keys, her keys are in her bag which is locked in the boot. My key are at work with me....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Save YOUR valuable time finding out something you want to know but it's ok to waste a dozen people's time on your behalf?

 

Serously, if anyone thinks research is time wasted they are in completely the wrong hobby.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

 

Not quite what I meant. (as usual) I think at least there should be some effort made by the questioner, however sometimes the search results are more of a problem than a simple question. I'm not saying do no search, I am not saying try to refine that search, but ploughing your way through thousands of posts (not topic headings) and still not finding the answer is a real waste of time and effort. Sure the answer may just be in there somewhere but you end up having to read through endless other irrelevant material and all the me2 "I agree" and other yahdeyahda - that is not research.

 

I also disagree with reopening threads long past unless there is something new or closely related to the original topic.

 

As said, I have been dredging my way through a few topics on a particular subject matter without reaching a conclusion, and anyway the question is more of an opinion that just simple fact. I'm sure it has been asked before but then it has not come up in a search of topics so the question may be a slight variant on a preceding one. There are probably half a dozen other topics I could reopen but they would nearly all be taken off topic (not a good thing to do). So what better way to do it other than start a new one? It is simple, it costs very little in site database terms and it focuses a topic on the specific question for the next person to search.

 

It is unfortunate that we do not all posess the breadth of in depth knowledge on every aspect/region/period of the prototype and model. Some of us focus on specific aspects and can be a source of answers in those areas, but sometimes there is a question outside that expertise. A few searches sure is a good thing but spending many wasted hours only to have to come back and ask the same question as a new topic?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The Search facility can at times be an impressively useless tool indeed. Put "Andy Y" into the search engine for the members forum, and this is what you get.

 

"One or all of your search keywords were below 5 characters or you searched for words which are not allowed, such as 'html', 'img', etc, please increase the length of these search keywords or choose different keywords." How stupid is that?

 

Just in case anyone does want to search for Andy Y enter it as a phrase as suggested under the search box, "Andy Y"

 

I wish I could find my car keys as easily!

Link to post
Share on other sites

How much of the problem is that someone (potentially a new member not familiar with the quirks of the less than perfect search system) posts a previously asked question, and how much is the way that is responded to be others??

 

Rather than experienced members complaining that they are repeating themselves, why not just post a brief reply that it has been covered previously and include a link to the relevant thread (and at that point report the new thread to the mods to be locked). It doesn't encourage the new member if the only response they get is a grumpy "use the search" and it only exaserbates the search issues if new information is posted in the new thread spreading information around rather than it being all in one place and thereby easier to find...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Rather than experienced members complaining that they are repeating themselves, why not just post a brief reply that it has been covered previously and include a link to the relevant thread (and at that point report the new thread to the mods to be locked). It doesn't encourage the new member if the only response they get is a grumpy "use the search" and it only exaserbates the search issues if new information is posted in the new thread spreading information around rather than it being all in one place and thereby easier to find...

 

Sorry, don't agree, so anyone who has previously taken the time to answer should also spend their time to dig out the old thread and provide the newbie with a link, rather than suggesting they do something for themselves, like look around ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Sorry, don't agree, so anyone who has previously taken the time to answer should also spend their time to dig out the old thread and provide the newbie with a link, rather than suggesting they do something for themselves, like look around ?

 

Agreed, perhaps this thread was re-opened, due to my comment about

"Scale "-appearance OO track

 

 

where I offered the advice

 

I suggest you do a search for 'code 75' within the forum, as this subject has been done many times before.

 

which I believe gave the OP a clue as to how to find such information, without wasting time actually providing the links myself. I had in fact tested that particular search (the first thing that came to mind) before hand and it provided many previous threads with such headings as "Improving Peco code 75" and "Peco code 75 - sleeper spacing", which I believe is exactly the sort of information that the OP was after.

 

If PLD, thinks that was a 'grumpy, use the search' response, well perhaps not bothering to answer would be a preferred way?

 

 

Kevin Martin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than experienced members complaining that they are repeating themselves, why not just post a brief reply that it has been covered previously and include a link to the relevant thread (and at that point report the new thread to the mods to be locked). It doesn't encourage the new member if the only response they get is a grumpy "use the search" and it only exaserbates the search issues if new information is posted in the new thread spreading information around rather than it being all in one place and thereby easier to find...

Sorry, don't agree, so anyone who has previously taken the time to answer should also spend their time to dig out the old thread and provide the newbie with a link, rather than suggesting they do something for themselves, like look around ?

I tend to waver between these two responses according to what sort of mood I'm in and, perhaps, even the way the question is posed. If it takes no more than a few clicks to find the previous thread(s) I'll usually post a link or two if no one else has got there first. On the other hand, I might just say that its recently been covered and suggest a search. Either way, what often happens is that several other members then chip in with responses that range anywhere from well-informed to just plain wrong irrespective of whether or not their points have been made or refuted in the earlier threads. I'm not consistent in using the report button, though. Perhaps I should be using it more, as PLD suggests, though I admit to a certain reticence to do that and a feeling that I might be overusing it anyway.

 

What has happened on a few occasions to me and others who have provided links is that the OP then thanks all those with direct replies but conspicuously ignores those providing the links to more extensive and/or better information. Things like this make me tend towards beast's view and just ignore the question.

 

Nick

Link to post
Share on other sites

If PLD, thinks that was a 'grumpy, use the search' response, well perhaps not bothering to answer would be a preferred way?

 

Oh no, don't suggest that or we will get the OP asking the question bumping the topic and claiming that no one cares about them and hasn't answered their simple question withing 5 seconds of it being posted!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the complaint from Mod6. It's a forum - a disccussion forum. If someone wants to ask a question, even if it has been asked before, then why shouldn't they?

 

Yes it is a forum, not just for discussion but also for ascertaining facts. With so many members the chances that a question has been asked before are high. It would seem to me courteous to make some effort first to see if had been asked recently. It must be weeks now since we had the 'what's the best rolling road' question for instance.

 

I can see Mod6's point all too well sometimes when a question is asked which is exactly the same as one which was asked a matter of months, or even weeks, previously. I'm not muttering about similar questions coming of out different contexts in different threads - that to my mind is an unavoidable (and not in the least unwelcome) consequence of moving and developing discussions but some things come round as 'new' questions with such monotonous regularity you could almost be marking their next appearance on the calendar.

 

Quite.

 

I think there is a real problem with the "search and yee shall find" diktat. One, even I am currently struggling with, seems at the moment to to be ending in a post along the lines "I have searched but ...".

 

I don't think anyone mentioned 'diktat'. Simple courtesy and some respect for other members who have taken the time and effort to provide answers in the past, often on more than one occasion. As per the OP we have no real issue with a post that starts "I have (genuinely) searched but ..."

 

I tend to waver between these two responses according to what sort of mood I'm in

 

We get like that sometimes - I was probably in a more grumpy mood about this when I posted the OP!

 

But fundamentally all we're asking for is courtesy and respect for members who have posted answers before to the question you are about to ask.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The Search facility can at times be an impressively useless tool indeed. Put "Andy Y" into the search engine for the members forum, and this is what you get.

 

"One or all of your search keywords were below 5 characters or you searched for words which are not allowed, such as 'html', 'img', etc, please increase the length of these search keywords or choose different keywords." How stupid is that?

 

That part of the search engine simply needs disabling on here. The Google option needs to be the default - which I think it now is if you search unintelligently, but trying to guess the forum where your query's answer might lie, i.e trying to be helpful by reducing options, instead actually reduces the chances of a hit. Mod 6 is right to ask for a commonsense approach, but common sense and the search facility have not been introduced to each other....

 

I do try and find previous threads before posting and generally I'm successful. But this 5 character issue for searches is for me the biggest obstacle for finding what I want. For example, i know there was a thread titled "Bachmann 47" so earlier today I put that in the google search to post about the new Modelzone L/E. As expected, I got lots of posts but nothing specific to that thread in the first pages at least - and trying to search under Forums (or anything else) I got nothing because of the 5 character problem. For diesel and electric searches by class number when you don't remember what other keywords to use it's a real issue. In this case I posted in a different pre-exising thread that I found first by going page by page through the Bachmann Forum.

 

If the minimum character limit for searches could be addressed, that would be a real benefit. Any chance, please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

...Either way, what often happens is that several other members then chip in with responses that range anywhere from well-informed to just plain wrong irrespective of whether or not their points have been made or refuted in the earlier threads.

...

What has happened on a few occasions to me and others who have provided links is that the OP then thanks all those with direct replies but conspicuously ignores those providing the links to more extensive and/or better information.

 

Looking back Nick, these points pretty much reflect my experience and as you say, it's not greatly motivating.

 

Whilst it's a basic tenet of research that single sources of information shouldn't automatically be seen as definitive, the current situation goes too far to the opposite extreme - multiple sources displaying questionable veracity. Either way, it seems that easily obtained information isnt always correct information, but maybe that's just reflective of wider attitudes and 'dumbing down'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...