| 10:31 am on Sep 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Having found this forum actually at 5 am in the morning, and having posted what I believed to be a genuine question, not actually realising the entire extent of the board, and having recieved a rude reply, I would like to say as a newbie, that the forum being so large does not lend itself to people who are new being able to know where all the information they want is. Most new people in any forum post something asking something that seems less useful to older members, or the less experienced. Arrogance because you know more is really off putting. All it would take is a little sorting of the board into a section for newer people if that really is a problem for those who can't be bothered by those not as far along the path as themselves.
Also, people differ in their levels of understanding. What is easy for one person is not necessarily as comprehensible to another.
What skin off of anyone's nose is it what a person posts (obviously though, relevant to the board topic), if they don't want to answer it?Why not just leave that thread for those with the time and inclination, and perhaps generosity, to do so. There is no law saying someone must read every thread before posting - or to answer it.. Searching through a million threads to find the answer to what you want can be very time consuming. Someone coming here for the first time may actually not even realise their question is answered. Things also change, and knowledge updates. ALL a more experienced poster ever need to is post a link, surely, to the relevant thread if they know the information is there.
| 1:48 pm on Sep 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|ALL a more experienced poster ever need to is post a link, surely, to the relevant thread if they know the information is there. |
Isn't a bit presumptuous to ask other members to search for the URLs of previous threads just because you don't want to invest your time?
Also, many of the questions that are asked here shouldn't need to be asked at all. For example, there is no legitimate reason for asking, "Is it OK to click on my own adds [sic]?"
| 4:36 pm on Sep 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
its great and all to expect newbies to search for old threads ... but whats the point if they cant post, or 'bump' them?
WW has this strange attribute of not allowing people to post in old threads. No wonder it ends up going around in circles
| 4:42 pm on Sep 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|WW has this strange attribute of not allowing people to post in old threads. No wonder it ends up going around in circles |
Nothing personal but that's a total load of...
There were 3-4 threads posted about the same exact PSA problem this week.
How hard is it to look on the list of topics to see if someone else has already posted about seeing PSA's due to the hurricane?
Lazy pure and simple.
| 5:23 pm on Sep 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
what on earth are you talking about?
|status: error : Post is older than system operator has set to allow. |
No Replies Allowed. The thread has been closed.
| 5:30 pm on Sep 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> a bit presumptuous to ask other members to search for the URLs of previous threads
The new poster may not even be aware a thread on the subject exists.
Yes, queries about whether it's OK to click one's own ads may sound stupid but it's amazing how many great discoveries were made by people asking what were considered stupid questions at the time. As Iwrite brilliantly points out - knowledge updates. The answer to whether it's OK to click one's own ads is not as clear cut as logic may dictate. Brett himself advises that you should click your own ads now and again. I reckon he's not a newbie.
I once helped someone with what I thought was a really stupid question. He thanked me profusely by sticky, explained what he does for a living and ending up solving a particularly taxing coding problem I had. It doesn't hurt to be a little patient with new members.
| 5:43 pm on Sep 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|what on earth are you talking about? |
I'm talking about the fact that locking old posts has absolutely nothing to do with " it ends up going around in circles" because people post without looking up the previous answers, the fact that you can't post to an old thread doesn't mean the answer is invalid.
And my point was things "ends up going around in circles" in the same week as people didn't even bother to see 3 other posts about the same PSA issue so what in the heck good would posting to an ancient thread do when they can't find the same thread on the same day!
| 5:58 pm on Sep 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
well, nothing - i agree, of course people should scan a few pages back particularly regarding a question which relates to recent events
but i was referring to the idea that new members "search" for answers in this website (and FAQs etc). As a newbie, i have a few times found threads in WW which i had further questions for, but was not alowed to post them because they're 'too old'
Newbies are forced to start new threads asking the same or similar questions because they cant reply to the older and more relevant/informational threads! Hence the forum going around in circles...
| 9:54 pm on Sep 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
A point of clarification: I was the one who wrote the "rude" reply to Iwrite's post in the Advertising/Affiliates forum.
Iwrite asked: "does anyone around here make any money?"
I answered: "If you spend just one hour looking around this forum and the AdSense group, you'll find amazing answers. Why not do a little work?"
Was that rude? I don't know. Heck, I'm a newbie myself.
| 10:29 pm on Sep 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|not alowed to post them because they're 'too old' |
Well, I agree that I've wanted to extend a thread once or twice myself, but when the last post was 2003 or 2004 for that matter you never know if the original participants are still members or even alive for that matter so I can see some logic to locking the thread after a perion of time.
I think a reasonable feature of the forum could be an automatic "continue thread with new post" option that backlinks the original thread for reference just to make is easier to track it all.
| This 40 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 40 ( 1  ) |