There have been a bunch of repeat ask.mefi questions.

June 14, 2006 1:56 PM

There have been a bunch of repeat ask.mefi questions. Is this bad?
posted by filmgeek to Etiquette/Policy at 1:56 PM (32 comments total)

Realistically, I get tired of the callout in Ask.Mefi for the older ask.mefi question that's the same/similar to the past questions.

Some people may not have responded/cared/joined then.

Some new answers may come up.

But with a bunch of ask.mefi of recent there's been a post to the prior question(s), as if that answer was 'perfect' for the questioner.
posted by filmgeek at 1:57 PM on June 14, 2006

It might be bad but we've talked about it before and decided nothing was going to be done. Or matt decided that.
posted by delmoi at 1:59 PM on June 14, 2006

Are you actually complaining about people posting links to the older questions?
posted by smackfu at 2:01 PM on June 14, 2006

Some people may not have responded/cared/joined then.

Which is why you search on your question before asking.

But if you miss the older question, we helpfully point it out. Often with caveats such as "this may be a bit outdated" or "this is a similar situation that you may find helpful." You know, all friendly-like.
posted by desuetude at 2:03 PM on June 14, 2006

Helpfully pointing out previous threads that address the same question is not a "callout". (And I'd personally be embarassed to ask a question that had already been asked and answered, as it would illustrate an unwillingness or inability to do a simple search, but maybe that's just me).
posted by obloquy at 2:11 PM on June 14, 2006

Many times the original question doesn't fully answer what the new poster had in mind, or is outdated. And, searches don't always go as well as they should, for one reason or another; different terminology, etc.
posted by Cycloptichorn at 2:23 PM on June 14, 2006

If the question has a single, obvious, factual answer and was previously asked and answered, then I suppose there's nothing new for a reasking of the question to uncover.

But in all cases where there are multiple possibilities or nuances and shadings of the situation, repeating the question seems reasonable. Answerers linking to the old question as a starting point is also reasonable.
posted by jacquilynne at 2:25 PM on June 14, 2006

I would think a link to a previous, related question, accompanied by anything more polite than "omg search next time you fucker", is kosher.
posted by cortex at 2:25 PM on June 14, 2006

hmmm
posted by caddis at 2:44 PM on June 14, 2006

Computer-specific questions have a shelf-life of six months, if that long.
posted by mischief at 2:47 PM on June 14, 2006

There have been a bunch of repeat meta.talk questions. Is this bad?
posted by blue_beetle at 3:17 PM on June 14, 2006

There have been a bunch of repeat metatalk comments. Is this bad?
posted by cortex at 3:22 PM on June 14, 2006

There have been a bunch of repeat metatalk comments. Is this bad?
posted by cortex at 3:23 PM on June 14, 2006

There have been a bunch of repeat metatalk comments. Is this bad?

hrmmm
posted by cortex at 3:23 PM on June 14, 2006

What desuetude and cortex said. If it's just a link to a previous question, without any snarky or insulting comment, you should assume it's intended as a helpful pointer, not a callout.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:29 PM on June 14, 2006

Me too. Posting links to similar - or even just mildly related - AskMe questions is good and should be encouraged.
posted by mediareport at 4:17 PM on June 14, 2006

Jessamyn and I have been talking about this very thing this week -- eventually we could do things like force people to do a search before they get to the posting page because there are a lot of repeats, either using the new more stable search or the Google API to keep them on this site. I don't think it's gotten that bad yet, but it's definitely something I'm thinking about.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:32 PM on June 14, 2006

Posting links to similar - or even just mildly related - AskMe questions is good and should be encouraged.

Also helpful for future Googlers.
posted by russilwvong at 4:46 PM on June 14, 2006

People seem to be much better at tagging in AskMe. Maybe you can use tags to identify probable duplicates? So if two tags match, and the category matches, show them those questions on the preview screen or something.
posted by smackfu at 5:02 PM on June 14, 2006

But if you miss the older question, we helpfully point it out. Often with caveats such as "this may be a bit outdated" or "this is a similar situation that you may find helpful." You know, all friendly-like.

Aye.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:15 PM on June 14, 2006

Well, Matt/Jess (and others.) I'm not calling out the idea of posting the link to old/similar threads...but it feels snarky.

All too often, it's just like caddis link. One word, linked.

There ought to be some level of summary from the older thread (searched badly by the poster, perhaps.) It's like a FPP that's just a single link with no explanation.

That's what bothers me. I mean, if you're going to go search, post the thread....why not at least summarize the conclusion?
posted by filmgeek at 6:05 PM on June 14, 2006

DevilsAdvocate writes "If it's just a link to a previous question, without any snarky or insulting comment, you should assume it's intended as a helpful pointer, not a callout"

When I do a: See Also. it is always an FYI, never a "this should answer your question you searching impaired fool" call out.

filmgeek writes "I mean, if you're going to go search, post the thread....why not at least summarize the conclusion?"

What if there was no conclusion? Not every question has a "42"/"yes"/"no" answer. A quick link to a previous discussion on ask isn't like a blind link on the front page, the linker obviously feels the previous question is similiar enough that the OP should read it which is a fairly specific hint as to what the link is about.
posted by Mitheral at 6:20 PM on June 14, 2006

If the poster's not willing to do the work to read through linked threads that probably answer his question, why on earth should I take the time to summarize the answer for him? He's the one with the problem, he should be willing to do a *bit* of work to find the answer.

I'm often feeling slightly snarky when I post "previously on AskMe" links, which is why I don't include commentary. Because the commentary would come across as snarky, and that seems unhelpful. But it's a little annoying to see the same question someone posted a month ago -- if we're so worried that the site archives be helpful for people in the future, why don't we encourage people to use the archives now? We can't argue that the threads are good for posterity *and* that new answers/perspectives are an unqualified right for anyone with a previously asked question.

Mostly, though, I just get annoyed when someone doesn't seem to have done at least a bit of research before posting. But I do try to contain the annoyance.
posted by occhiblu at 6:40 PM on June 14, 2006

why not at least summarize the conclusion?

Because implying that the poster can't read after demonstrating that they can't wrangle a search engine would be adding insult to injury.

Seriously, I think the poster is more likely to get decent info from browsing the entire linked thread than from any summary.
posted by oneirodynia at 6:47 PM on June 14, 2006

... and what occhiblu said.
posted by oneirodynia at 6:48 PM on June 14, 2006

I fully agree with occhiblu. When people are too lazy to search, they miss good information and an opportunity to refine and focus their question in light of what has gone before. They also cause a page that already scrolls with ridiculous speed to scroll even faster - since they might have found a definitive answer.

I wouldn't even think of summarizing. I recently did a "Previously on..." post, and it was about travel destinations. Each and every response in the thread would have been useful to the Asker, and the questions were identical. No need to summarize; just read away.

AskMe is at its most useful when it's used for information not easily found elsewhere on the web -- evaluative responses, arcane topics, specialized knowhow, local knowledge, subjective recommendations, boiled-down summaries, advice. When people use it to ask about factual things that are easily looked up on widely-known sources -- especially the page itself -- it does get frustrating. I'm not saying I've never asked anything that wasn't available elsewhere, but if it's kept to a minimum, AskMe is just a better read, and more helpful.
posted by Miko at 6:48 PM on June 14, 2006

"Posting links to similar - or even just mildly related - AskMe questions is good and should be encouraged."

and

"Also helpful for future Googlers."

I spend a lot of time doing this for topics I'm familiar with (even more time on MeFi than AskMe).. I think it is the primary reason to have administrator added tags, but perhaps there is an even better scheme out there.
posted by Chuckles at 7:21 PM on June 14, 2006

As I suspected, quite a bit of it, is people being snarky.

Look, there's this idea that some of the people asking questions are actually deficient in searching skills (and possibly in other places around the internet.)

There are people here on Mefi who, face it, just aren't elite uber net users.

Which is all the more reason to write a short summary....especially when a best answer has been given. And it'd even help more for future googlers since two web pages now have answer information.
posted by filmgeek at 9:29 PM on June 14, 2006

People may not be "elite net users," but seriously, they can presumably read. I don't understand what you're talking about with the short summary -- if answering the question took 10 or 30 or 50 comments previously, shouldn't the new poster read all those comments?
posted by occhiblu at 9:52 PM on June 14, 2006

Yeah, you're barking up the wrong tree, filmgeek. It's not up to other people to do the poster's work for them. They're being nice enough to point him or her in the right direction; that's all that's called for.
posted by languagehat at 6:19 AM on June 15, 2006

filmgeek, no offense, but you sound a little oversensitive or defensive here. I'm not even sure why you think that your suspicions of snark have been confirmed by this thread. Summary is going to sound more snark than links in a lot of cases, and also runs the risk of encouraging those not-net-savvy people to not bother reading the old threads. (How does this go? We asked this already, and the answer is peanut butter and celery sticks.) The old thread, with the myriad of opinions, are going to be more helpful than any summary. Plus, a summary of what "happened" in a thread is derail waiting to happen!

Besides, a lot of the AskMes that are asked repeatedly are not good candidates for summary. Like, "what are some yummy healthy easy-to-prepare snacks" or "I can't seem to lose weight and I'm freaking out" or "my spouse and I don't have sex anymore" or "I'm considering moving for a job/SO/adventure and I've got cold feet" or "I'm in debt up to my eyebrows and don't know how to save money" or "I wonder if I'm gay."
posted by desuetude at 6:32 AM on June 15, 2006

I post these links sometimes. As you can see, I try to at least include the title or an excerpt of the previous post, but it's pretty rare that a thread can be usefully summarized in a single comment.

I'm not snarking when I do this. I know old posts can be hard to find. (I sometimes have trouble finding them myself, even when I know what I'm looking for.) In fact, one of the reasons I post the links is so that the older thread will be easier to find in the future.
posted by mbrubeck at 11:24 AM on June 15, 2006