Thread Already Exists...

This thread already exists.

I do not read threads that are over 5 pages. It is like jumping into a conversation randomly I find.

When people are told to post on a thread that already exists, I understand. Its for organization purposes really. But if that person HAD posted under said thread (right said fred?) I would not end up reading it because...

a) the conversation has died
b) there is just too much reading
c) there is just too much reading and too many posts that do not progress the conversation or idea at hand, they are just one liners.

I have been around ATS for approx. 5 years now and I never use the search when trying to find topics, I stop by a couple times a day, check the recent post pages 1 and 2, and if nothing jumps out at me, I leave.

So when people use the search function and post under the old thread, even if it is a topic that interests me, I go somewhere else for the information because 30 pages is just too much to wade through, and since it is an old topic, it will sink to the bottom of the recent posts quite quickly.

So why is it that so many ATS members feel the need to make sure people are posting under the old threads? I understand that we cant have 200 threads on the swine flu or deepwater, but for simple things like paranormal, ancient artifacts, UFO's, etc. is it really THAT bad if there is a duplicate thread?

I understand that there may be good information in the old thread for the creater of the new thread, but for those of us who want the information, but dont have 2 hours to read through the thread, a new thread helps us get on our way.

Referencing the other thread is great, but some people almost use the "Thread already exists" line to basically say "Shut up".

I dont know. This isnt a question thread really, but just what Ive had on my mind about the board.

What's hard about reading past 5 pages?

What on earth will you do if this thread goes past 5 pages??

Start another?

reply to post by epitaph.one


So, you would rather start anew and rehash old arguments, repost old links, repost already debunked hoaxes and lies, instead of taking a few minutes to read, educate yourself and understand the subject better?

I understand wanting to start a new thread if you have new information, and the old thread has died out, but that still requires reading the old thread and verifying that you do indeed have "new" information.

Why would anyone want to start a new thread only to find out that it was already discussed, debated, and discarded over a few pages in an old thread? For the stars and flags?

If you are here to "Deny Ignorance" and seek the truth and educate yourself, and maybe have a lively debate, then it is a necessity that you do your due diligence, read the threads, learn the subject before you decide to post something. Anything less is just plain lazy and unproductive!

I'm sorry but I think this thread has already been done before.

I don't think any of them went past five pages though.

Originally posted by epitaph.one
I do not read threads that are over 5 pages. It is like jumping into a conversation randomly I find.

Then you cannot be fully informed in many cases. You are not "denying your own ignorance"

a) the conversation has died

How would you know

b) there is just too much reading

Short on time, or attention span perhaps?

c) there is just too much reading and too many posts that do not progress the conversation or idea at hand, they are just one liners.

And how would you know that if you don't read them?

I have been around ATS for approx. 5 years now and I never use the search when trying to find topics

:shk: Then you are not participating in the site properly.

So when people use the search function and post under the old thread, even if it is a topic that interests me, I go somewhere else for the information because 30 pages is just too much to wade through, and since it is an old topic, it will sink to the bottom of the recent posts quite quickly.

Sounds like a severe case of "can't be bothered" to me.

is it really THAT bad if there is a duplicate thread?

Not always but it is better in one place.

This sounds more like an F gathering exercise than anything of the slightest interest or relevance given what is going on in the world.

[edit on 10/8/2010 by PuterMan]

i agree with the OP. Of course, no one wants 100 swine flu threads over the course of 2 days. But rehashing something that hasn't been hashed in the last 9 months is not so bad.

Take moon anomolies. Most of the ones i see presented lately were already hashed out in the John Lear thread. But do we really expect someone to wade through 350 pages of "its just rocks" to determine if it is new?

And then what about people who make a thread with some far flung name that is hard to find on the search feature?

i have been around for a few years. I am here daily, quite a bit. I generally know what is going on in the areas i am interested in. I don't have to use the search feature, unless i am looking for stuff pre 2006.

It just seems like a pissing match. There has to be someone to come by and say, "I already posted this here....".

Silly humans, always wanting a reason to look down on other humans.

I disagree with the OP. A thread that is less than five pages long is usually that short either because it is a) new, or b) it sucks.

The longer threads are the better thread. Why? BECAUSE THERE'S MORE INFORMATION IN THEM!!! A thread with thirty pages in it usually represents about half an hour to an hour of reading, since you can immediately recognize and disregard the crap that invariably pollutes the landscape.

So I guess I'm a sucker for actually reading entire threads... All that extra information and opinion and debate which inevitably leads to a REALLY LONG THREAD is just a waste of my time?

[insert random disparaging verbiage here]!!!!!

If it hasn't been done for a few months (year?) then let a new thread roll. With the growth of the site and all the new guys joining, some of those discussions are brand new and they want to write their own comments.

Even guys who I have a lot of respect for can't help posting some one line criticism about the damn 'search function.'

I feel sorry for the young kids who sign up and constantly get bitched at to use the search function. No input in the thread, no friendly pointers, just a blank statement. It screws with discussion and intimidates them from posting again. I know, because I remember how it felt when I joined and I'm an adult. Internos kind of sponsored me.

When I see a thread that's been posted before, I either ignore it or add to it.

ats should add a system to verify each time you create a new thread if another thread exists that is similar, so then you can go to that thread instead of duplicating the discussion

One of the things I absolutely Hate about the "thread already exists" is some of the threads a person gets sent to have already been 404ed due to ??? don't know, it was 404ed!! Or thread closed.

That gets frustrating. Doesn't happen often, but happens enough.

Drives me nuts to go to a thread I thought I posted in only to find 1. that my post isn't there and 2. that there are 2 or 3 and sometimes even 4 or 5 posts on the same subject.

A lot of times, even if you search you miss something. Part of the challenge is that depending on which news agency or outlet you pick a story up from, it can have different headlines. This can make searching trickier still.

Checking the firehoses helps you see what's been posted recently.

Also, there's nothing wrong with going back to a story posted a while back and updating it to maintain chronology. This actually makes it a lot easier for people researching theories...to have all the information in one place.

Look at the example of recent BP influx of threads. I wonder how many times 1.) people found themselves reposting that same vital information in multiple threads (or worse, just got tired and gave up) and 2.) how many patterns and how much information we missed because that happened.

One thing I'm not crystal clear on though is the reposting of the same topic on different forums. Sometimes it's allowed and other times not.

For example, it might be perfectly valid to post a breaking news story in BAN or BPN and then also have it show up in General Conspiracy or Deconstructing Disinformation. The story is being posted for different reasons or purposes. But sometimes the line seem finer than that.

To me that's seems like one of the more complicated things the mods seem to consider when weeding out duplicates.

What I've noticed is that a lot of duplicate threads have a bunch of replies, but the posters are totally different. Comments also, and the discussion has been taking another path all together.

When one of them gets closed the info gets lost. I have not seen many posters that actually post again what they said in the closed thread.

That's to bad...