Try searching first... just a thought

[masonsjax]

The site switch on Google is very useful for limiting searches to a specific site, try googling:

site:talkbass.com tone woods

Or whatever terms you want. All results will be from the site you specify.

 

[Liam Wald]

When you really get 'round to it. Every topic ever known to mankind has been covered many times over.
Doesn't mean that you shouldn't bring it up again. May be that there is new input, opinion or research on a given subject.
Isn't that the whole point of a discussion?
If you think that you already know everything and because of that everyone else should too then turn off the computer or better yet don't read.
Maybe it isn't really just all about you and what you think is important.
As they say in Singapore... grow the f### up.

 

[hrodbert696]

I just wonder why it bugs some ppl so much

I'm not sure, because it was before my time on staff, but I think the capabilities of the forum host were more limited. I do remember that, before a big upgrade a few years back, it used to be threads could only have 1000 posts before you had to start a new one. That's no longer needed, but it's why you have some big threads that are "part 17" or whatever - they're holdovers from before the switch.

So I'm speculating here, but I wonder if the "do a search" culture is related to that - a concern that new threads can clog up the forum's functionality, so people should search before starting a thread on something that's already covered. Then it becomes a badge of whether you're a sophisticated good citizen who knows how to use TB right vs. some noob who blunders around starting superfluous threads.

 

[bearhart74]

everybody thinks theirs is an original thought.

 

[4001]

Once again, I was about to post a question here on TB, and just before I clicked post, I thought "wait, this has probably been discussed before... lemme search for it first"... and boom! there it was!

Best bass for metal ??

 

[ThinCrappyTone]

I find searching works better by using Google...and adding 'Talkbass' to the query.

agree, google is way better at finding tb topics than tb search is

 

[Oddly]

I think the "do a search" thing is most relevant when it's a topic that comes up a lot.
You can be pretty sure any question related to a Fender Precision or Jazz, for example, has already been asked. Obviously that can cause frustration in the long-time users who may well have notifications set up for key words...although if you've set up one for Fender Precision you've no business being annoyed if you get a thousand alerts a day.

Personally I'd rather send a poster a pm with some relevant links to helpful threads than hit him/her with the "do a search" reply.
That's just me though. I don't get my kicks from belittling others...and to me that's what it reads as, even if that's not the intent.

 

[Whippet]

everybody thinks theirs is an original thought.

it's like a butt hole. Everybody has an original one.

 

[maxschrek]

It often is highly dependent on the topic. I've searched for things I know will have been discussed a thousand times, but if there's any hardware involved at all, what comes up are pages and pages of classifieds where that item has been offered for sale or trade. Sometimes I do that search and end up posting a new thread, and the first three responses are "use the search engine."

So there's that. And then there's the thought that maybe people who are newer to the forum have the same rights to discuss topics that others found interesting six or seven years ago. It's easy enough to ignore a topic you're not interested in.

And finally, on those occasions when someone does actually a) use the search engine and b) produce a relevant thread, posting to that thread will earn you a hand slap for reviving a necro thread.

So really, the only way to keep everyone happy is to not post anything, ever.

Exactly.

 

[LBS-bass]

I'm not sure, because it was before my time on staff, but I think the capabilities of the forum host were more limited. I do remember that, before a big upgrade a few years back, it used to be threads could only have 1000 posts before you had to start a new one. That's no longer needed, but it's why you have some big threads that are "part 17" or whatever - they're holdovers from before the switch.

So I'm speculating here, but I wonder if the "do a search" culture is related to that - a concern that new threads can clog up the forum's functionality, so people should search before starting a thread on something that's already covered. Then it becomes a badge of whether you're a sophisticated good citizen who knows how to use TB right vs. some noob who blunders around starting superfluous threads.

It's not just been here. I used to hang out in a corner of the internet called USENET many years ago and people in those groups were always griping about newbies coming in and asking the same questions over and over again. IMO it's a territorial thing. The early "residents" create a culture and then feel like they need to maintain the space in a way that's to their liking, and they don't really feel comfortable when strangers pop in and start doing the things they did years earlier in that same space. It seems like this is just the norm for internet communities. Something inherent in human nature.

 

[Whippet]

It's not just been here. I used to hang out in a corner of the internet called USENET many years ago and people in those groups were always griping about newbies coming in and asking the same questions over and over again. IMO it's a territorial thing. The early "residents" create a culture and then feel like they need to maintain the space in a way that's to their liking, and they don't really feel comfortable when strangers pop in and start doing the things they did years earlier in that same space. It seems like this is just the norm for internet communities. Something inherent in human nature.

Isn't it sad? I mean the internet is where you can be anonymous and it's vast. People fighting for real estate and a position in the vast world wide web is so petty. Seriously, some people need to get off the net and meet people in real life.

I tend to think of it as a homeless fighting another homeless for a glass of water in the middle of the lake.

 

[GlenParks]

Hey, I don’t mind someone searching for a topic, and reviving an old thread if they have a new or updated question. What I don’t understand, is those who ignore the thread date, and answer a twenty year old question. It’s like “who are you talking to?”

The next person who searches the topic.

It needn’t be about the OP; people are encouraged to look for information in existing threads.

 

[wmhill]

Golden as freshly picked booger.

!!!!!

 

[monkeyland]

It often is highly dependent on the topic. I've searched for things I know will have been discussed a thousand times, but if there's any hardware involved at all, what comes up are pages and pages of classifieds where that item has been offered for sale or trade.

If you search within the relevant forum, ie: don't include the classifieds in your search, you won't get all of those for sale threads in your results.

 

[aekisz]

When you really get 'round to it. Every topic ever known to mankind has been covered many times over.
Doesn't mean that you shouldn't bring it up again. May be that there is new input, opinion or research on a given subject.
Isn't that the whole point of a discussion?
If you think that you already know everything and because of that everyone else should too then turn off the computer or better yet don't read.
Maybe it isn't really just all about you and what you think is important.
As they say in Singapore... grow the f### up.

Yeah. I agree. I don't mind topics being regurgitated because it allows new information, new experiences to be brought into play. I search plenty, but I tend to favor the newer posts because there's a lot of fossilized stuff here about products that aren't available any more or comparisons that leave out gear that didn't exist yet when the original discussions were posted. If a topic bores you, don't read it. It's as simple as that.

 

[Thumpr]

I've caught myself doing this or about to do this a few times. It's easy to forget to double check the dates. But if the thread and post is old, it's pretty unlikely the original poster will care that you responded seven years later.

A few days ago I was about to PM a member about a looper that’s currently green tagged “for sale” in the classifieds.
... from 2016.
Glad I noticed the date. (I picked a fresher offering instead.)

 

[BadSanta1281]

Ponder this...

Why is it a waste of time and effort to answer a question or post an opinion on a subject that has been discussed many times before and yet not a waste of time and effort to post an opinion about how it's a waste of time and effort to do so?

I didn't do a search to see if this question has already been asked. Sorry about that.

 

[bearfoot]

I often do this via search engine as well. I prefer to use DuckDuckGo — Privacy, simplified.

As for those who do not search, and only start new threads, this is a good thing also. It adds layers to the data, and updates it in an organic fashion over time.

 

[Thumpr]

Yeah, or if you revive an old thread and then someone invariable chimes in something like "late to the party, are we?"!

I also find it extremely helpful when the thread title is accurate to the topic being discussed. There are often titles along the lines of "Please help me choose..." and "I just can't help myself" and that type of stuff.

But I agree, sometimes it is okay to start a new topic on an often discussed subject if only to get some updated responses or throw a variation on the subject.

Last night I was playing a new addition to the quiver and noticed my playing was subtly different on that stick. Was going to ask “do different basses make you play differently”?
Searched it first. There it was - asked verbatim, sept. 2018. Some “usual responses” as well as some reasonable answers to the question. I didn’t post. But in hindsight I also didn’t get to participate in a new conversation.

 

[Phil508]

I did , but I got too many results.