Home   Forum   Wiki   Notes   Register   FAQ   Sitemap   About Us   Contact Us  

Does anyone care to check the Archives before reinventing the wheel for the millionth time?

Topic started by Udhaya (@ 205.218.142.217) on Thu Jan 28 18:54:13 EST 1999.
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

---

Responses:

• From: Udhaya (@ 205.218.142.217) on: Thu Jan 28 18:57:57 EST 1999
  
  Does anyone care to check the Archives before reinventing the wheel for the millionth
  time?
  
  The answer is a big fat NO
  
  I think the TFMgroup should start charging fines for every duplicate thread created. If they did that, the page would earn so much to make it profitable. At least have some good come out of all this rehashing, please.
  
  
• From: Kelviyin naayagan (@ 207.43.195.201) on: Thu Jan 28 19:37:23 EST 1999
  
  Could U be more specific as to which thread you are referring to?
  
  
• From: Udhaya (@ 205.218.142.217) on: Thu Jan 28 23:33:57 EST 1999
  
  kelviyin naayaganae (oru arumayaana paadalai peyaraaga kondullathaal umakku badhil),
  -For instance, "IR and Symphony" has at least 6 or 7 threads in the Archives, not counting the many others that Ravi erased right away (back in those days when there were fewer to put out).
  -Marudhanaayagam and threads about it score a close second with at least 5 or 6 in number.
  -There must be at least 4 threads about new singers and pronunciation (not pronounciation btw, my vote for the best irony in thread titles)
  -Then there's the occasional person who wants to ask statistics about a song and starts a new thread for it without bothering to put his/her queries in the "Song stats" thread under the Permanent Threads section.
  -And of course we have wonderfully inventive topics, "IR's building", "IR's billboard" , etc. I'm waiting for "IR's dog barks sweeter than ARR's dog" which would be countered by, "ARR's dog is smarter, it won more medals"
  -Then there are children who want to be parents (in other words, subtopics that think they need to be main topics: "what about songs of Padayappa?", couldn't this be discussed under "new releases by ARR"? Similarly, you got "A new album is gonna come" which could fit under "IR's new albums")
  
  Then there's an idiot like me who takes the DF serious enough to vent about it and starts a new thread for it, what do you do with these folks you know...well, I could go on but I'm sure you get the picture, besides, people are tired of my bit**ing, myself included.
  
  
• From: SPS (@ ramses.erlm.siemens.de) on: Thu Jan 28 23:44:43 EST 1999
  
  May be TFM admins can restrict the rules little bit for creating new threads. One suggestion is tht when the user tries to create a new thread, a search with the key words of the newly requested thread, can be made to findout whether a similar thread already exists. If some matches found, they can be listed and the user can either revive one of them or she can go ahead with the new thread, if she feels none of them are suitable. This gives an oppurtunity for the creater of the thread to revive a possibly a similar thread and makes the creater of the thread to forcibly see any existing similar threads. But the problem here is, how to identify the key words? Almost every other thread has IR or ARR in it! so, we may need to workout here...
  
  
• From: Rajaraman (@ pb.cache.nlanr.net) on: Fri Jan 29 00:18:17 EST 1999
  
  PS,
  good suggestion. Incidentally, sashi has also suggested this.
  will try to work on it.
  
  
• From: bb (@ compq1.crhc.uiuc.edu) on: Fri Jan 29 02:07:33 EST 1999
  
  Udhaya, i am sorry to point this out, but, do u feel that a thread was necessary for this? i was going through this thread called "paving the way for a better discussion forum", started by you again. in the first posting itself, u have said precisely the same thing that u have reiterated here. so, i guess, what u say to others appeal to u as well, and u could have just revived that thread, instead of creating a new one!
  http://www.newtfmpage.com/forum/17304.14.55.37.html
  
  
• From: kumar (@ 148.5.43.53) on: Fri Jan 29 03:46:26 EST 1999
  
  
  
  But why people get threadcount consious?
  I agree its better to archive.. but if u write this thread under better disscussion..
  iam definite it will go unnoticed...
  we cant keep talking things with a broad topic..
  its just like having a single thread tfmdisscussion and talking abt everything tfm in that.
  
  
• From: Srinath (@ ss08.nc.us.ibm.com) on: Fri Jan 29 12:07:36 EST 1999
  
  Udhaya:
  I feel some amount of repetition is required to sustain interest in the TFM-DF. The regulars may find it monotonous, but I am sure the newcomers would be more enthused by the idea of starting a discussion of their own. It can become tiresome when 'lists' threads are repeated and perhaps the TFM Admin can put up a seperate section for 'lists' threads show no leniency with repeated 'list' threads. But as for the other topics, I'm afraid very little can be done.
  
  bb:
  I could almost hear Udhaya's 'Ouch!' :-)
  
  
• From: Udhaya (@ 205.218.142.217) on: Fri Jan 29 14:39:07 EST 1999
  
  bb,
  I believe the irony that you're pointing out has been addressed in the last paragraph of my posting. The original thread was a general guideline, this one reiterates it with specific examples since people don't get it.
  
  
• From: Viswa (@ webgate0.mot.com) on: Fri Jan 29 14:44:06 EST 1999
  
  Guys,
  Some reasons why newcomers might be taking the option of starting new threads instead of going through the archives could be that :
  
  * It takes quite some time for the search engine to return the set of threads matching a (set of) keywords, with the result that many a time the connection times out.
  
  * As PS has pointed out, locating the relevant threads for some of the topics may be a little difficult because the match pattern might be too specific (thus, not resulting in amy matches) or too general (where it would return too many not-exactly-relevant threads).
  
  * Or more often than not, the newcomers are too enthusiastic to start new threads that they often don't take the trouble of going through the archives to see if such a thing has been discussed before (Udhaya's examples are illustrative of these instances).
  Or, to give some benefit of doubt to the newcomers, it could be that some of them are not aware of the archives (that they need to make themselves aware of the system here first, is of course another matter !), and hence end up going all over again with the same old "beaten-to-death" stuff !
  
  But what is often irritating is that sometimes it is even the not-so-newcomers who are guilty of starting topics that have been discussed before without bothering to look up the archives and revive the appropriate thread ! That, I feel, shows an absolute lack of responsibility and betrays a sense of callousness on the offenders' part. This deserves to be condemned.
  
  
• From: Viswa (@ webgate0.mot.com) on: Fri Jan 29 14:45:25 EST 1999
  
  Guys,
  Some reasons why newcomers might be taking the option of starting new threads instead of going through the archives could be that :
  
  * It takes quite some time for the search engine to return the set of threads matching a (set of) keywords, with the result that many a time the connection times out.
  
  * As PS has pointed out, locating the relevant threads for some of the topics may be a little difficult because the match pattern might be too specific (thus, not resulting in amy matches) or too general (where it would return too many not-exactly-relevant threads).
  
  * Or more often than not, the newcomers are too enthusiastic to start new threads that they often don't take the trouble of going through the archives to see if such a thing has been discussed before (Udhaya's examples are illustrative of these instances).
  Or, to give some benefit of doubt to the newcomers, it could be that some of them are not aware of the archives (that they need to make themselves aware of the system here first, is of course another matter !), and hence end up going all over again with the same old "beaten-to-death" stuff !
  
  But what is often irritating is that sometimes it is even the not-so-newcomers who are guilty of starting topics that have been discussed before without bothering to look up the archives and revive the appropriate thread ! That, I feel, shows an absolute lack of responsibility and betrays a sense of callousness on the offenders' part. This deserves to be condemned.
  
  
• From: Viswa (@ webgate0.mot.com) on: Fri Jan 29 14:48:08 EST 1999
  
  Oops, sorry for the double posting ! That was a problem with the gateway server here, I guess !
  
  
• From: Srinath (@ ss04.nc.us.ibm.com) on: Fri Jan 29 14:50:04 EST 1999
  
  Viswa:
  Duplicate threadsukku periya punishmentunna, duplicate postingsukku oru chinna punishmentaavadhu vendam ? ;-) Just Kidding !
  
  (I hope my own posting does not embarass me by duplicating itself !)
  
  
• From: Viswa (@ webgate0.mot.com) on: Fri Jan 29 14:52:49 EST 1999
  
  Srinath,
  :-)))) Chance kidaicha viduveengalaa ? ;-))
  
  
• From: bb (@ schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu) on: Fri Jan 29 15:24:19 EST 1999
  
  udhaya: neenga sonnadhu justificationaa irundhaa, unga argumentskku againstaa yaar vEnumnaalum justify pannalaam. surukkamaa sollap pOnA, sappaikkattu!
  
  
• From: bb (@ schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu) on: Fri Jan 29 15:26:11 EST 1999
  
  But what is often irritating is that sometimes it is even the not-so-newcomers who are guilty of
  starting topics that have been discussed before without bothering to look up the archives and revive the
  appropriate thread ! That, I feel, shows an absolute lack of responsibility and betrays a sense of
  callousness on the offenders' part. This deserves to be condemned.
  
  viswa:yaarai sollreenga:-))
  
  
• From: Udhaya (@ 205.218.142.217) on: Fri Jan 29 16:03:40 EST 1999
  
  bb,
  My opinion is that this isn't a chappakkattu. This thread addresses a very specific problem which was mentioned along with other observations in the original thread. But that's just my opinion. Maybe it doesn't deserve a separate thread as per your opinion. You know what they say about opinions...
  
  Sure, let this thread be annexed with the old thread. That's cool by me. Where do I pay the fine?
  
  
• From: bb (@ schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu) on: Fri Jan 29 18:28:25 EST 1999
  
  udhaya: tfmpagekku swiss banklle irukkara accountlle kattidunga :-)))
  
  
• From: raja (@ spider-ti072.proxy.aol.com) on: Fri Jan 29 21:00:42 EST 1999
  
  One pullli .
  Starting a thread which may have been discussed in another age (when T-Rex was in the scene) should be accepted. The DFers ( or t-rexs :) who earlier discussed should in fact participate. One cannot go clicking old responses old responses old responses and finally go for entertainment to the adi thadi threads.. U get the padam ?
  
  
• From: muthax (@ user-38ld93m.dialup.mindspring.com) on: Sat Jan 30 00:58:48 EST 1999
  
  Yes some do start a thread without going through the archive, so how to solve this?
  in my opinion(IMO), when some seniors/regulars spot this, they can post the url in the newly started thread and send a mail to admin@newtfmpage asking them to freeze further discussion on that thread.
  i guess this is possible , rajaram?
  
  

---

List all pages of this thread

---

Back to the Forum

Post comments