The Great 'search before you post' debate!

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

Previously discussed here.

Noobs should be required to demonstrate proficiency in using the SEARCH FUNCTION before being allowed to post.

[andrew]

Previously discussed here.

Noobs should be required to demonstrate proficiency in using the SEARCH FUNCTION before being allowed to post.

No need to be an arse about it!

A simple merge thread request to a moderator would suffice without trying to show-up a new member. Plus, to be fair this thread you refer to is entitled "Super Cavitation Kinda". Using the search function would be useless - I just performed a search for "golf ball" and all the results offered were post in this here thread.

Maybe old hands should be required to demonstrate proficiency in being tolerant to new members before being allowed to converse with them.

[myownalias]

Previously discussed here.

Noobs should be required to demonstrate proficiency in using the SEARCH FUNCTION before being allowed to post.

No need to be an arse about it!

A simple merge thread request to a moderator would suffice without trying to show-up a new member. Plus, to be fair this thread you refer to is entitled "Super Cavitation Kinda". Using the search function would be useless - I just performed a search for "golf ball" and all the results offered were post in this here thread.

Indeed; and the search feature is broken, it only searches back to the beginning of December, something went wrong during the server migration!

[madbrad]

I would most wholeheartedly agree with Fred. Except I know the search doesn't work.
But did the poster know that?
Technically, if the search is working, then it is required byt he TOS to search and not add unnecessary threads to the forum. One agrees to the TOS by joining. Breaking rules subjects one to, at the worst, banning.

[myownalias]

I have split the last half dozen posts off into it's own thread, I can see this debate will continue and I'd rather not have the original thread ruined!

[bud]

I think its not a problem if the topic is years old instead of restarting it to create a new one.

[LewEngBridewell]

Dear CorkSoaker, if you are reading this patronising bag of bollocks, may I just like to say that we're not all as harsh and unwelcoming as the person who initiated this thread.

Furthermore, this thread should actually be in the FORUM AND WEBSITE ISSUES section

[myownalias]

Furthermore, this thread should actually be in the FORUM AND WEBSITE ISSUES section

It's not a forum or website issue, it's a general discussion about the use of the search feature by USERS...

[texasmr2]

Previously discussed here.

Noobs should be required to demonstrate proficiency in using the SEARCH FUNCTION before being allowed to post.

I used the search function just 1 or 2 days ago WITH relevant info and was unsuccessful!! I spent an addition 20min's tracing my post history and I'm not a noob, rebuttal ?

[darwin dali]

It is a website/forum issue - the search function is only marginal at the moment. Hopefully we can fix it at some point.
DD

[LewEngBridewell]

It is a website/forum issue - the search function is only marginal at the moment. Hopefully we can fix it at some point.
DD

Of course it's a forum and website issue. As usual, I am right. And I don't ever expect to be contradicted again.

[madbrad]

OK violators get a pass because the search is bustified, but that makes this forum an exception for the time being. But under normal circumstances:

Fred was only reiterating the rules. It usually irks me too when unnecesary new threads are made. I have fun posting my SEARCH .gif. But if the owner chooses not to enforce any particular rulw that's his or her right.
The title says DEBATE, but there's no debate when the rules about it are spelled out clearly. The reason for that rule is to keep bandwitdh use to a minimum. It cost the owner money. So there should be just one thread on a given topic. Every member is required to obey the rules as a condition of being allowed to remain a member. If you did not read the rules, that's your problem. Read them. Joining is acceptance of them. Is says that where you click to finalize your joining. There's no debate because the defense of rule breaking has no ground. But like I said maybe the owner of the forum doesn't care. He has the right to let it slide if he wants, every time or just the times he wants. He has the right to be inconsistent in enforcement too.

If you searched first and got no result or no great result or it is broken, then that should be stated in the first post of your new thread. If not, I will suspect you never tried.

I discovered, then asked about it, a few weeks ago while looking for the thread about look-alikes. Can anyone find it?

Tex: I think Fred did not know the Search is currently having problems. I doubt the OP bothered to find out though.

[darwin dali]

It is a website/forum issue - the search function is only marginal at the moment. Hopefully we can fix it at some point.
DD

Of course it's a forum and website issue. As usual, I am right. And I don't ever expect to be contradicted again.

You're walking on exceedingly thin ice

[darwin dali]

OK violators get a pass because the search is bustified, but that makes this forum an exception for the time being. But under normal circumstances:

Fred was only reiterating the rules. It usually irks me too when unnecesary new threads are made. I have fun posting my SEARCH .gif. But if the owner chooses not to enforce any particular rulw that's his or her right.
The title says DEBATE, but there's no debate when the rules about it are spelled out clearly. The reason for that rule is to keep bandwitdh use to a minimum. It cost the owner money. So there should be just one thread on a given topic. Every member is required to obey the rules as a condition of being allowed to remain a member. If you did not read the rules, that's your problem. Read them. Joining is acceptance of them. Is says that where you click to finalize your joining. There's no debate because the defense of rule breaking has no ground. But like I said maybe the owner of the forum doesn't care. He has the right to let it slide if he wants, every time or just the times he wants. He has the right to be inconsistent in enforcement too.

If you searched first and got no result or no great result or it is broken, then that should be stated in the first post of your new thread. If not, I will suspect you never tried.

I discovered, then asked about it, a few weeks ago while looking for the thread about look-alikes. Can anyone find it?

Tex: I think Fred did not know the Search is currently having problems. I doubt the OP bothered to find out though.

It's also very annoying to have to sift through multiple threads that are basically identical or restart the same old discussion with the same old arguments we just did a few months back - let's keep the Forum tidy and avoid such waste of energy

[Stephen]

Will take a look now - believe there's a small database issue.