New To The Boards? Don't Start Any New Threads

[+BillsBayou]

When is old just too old? When is new new?

 

WARNING: THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE AND I DON'T GIVE A RATS REAR IF IT HAS.

 

This is not a complaint against any one person on any particular board. This is a complaint for all the "Old Timers" on any bulletin board anywhere on the Internet.

 

I've been participating in various discussion boards since 1991. What I've noticed is the near encyclopedic memory of the Old Timers on every board I've visited. They attack new posts with their "It's Been Discussed Before" posts.

 

For new people, it's not unlike showing up late to a cocktail party. There are plenty of people around all engaged in conversations that began YEARS AGO. The new people listen for a while, get the gist of the room, and attempt to begin a new conversation.

 

Suddenly a loud voice booms out THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE! YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DISCUSS WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE

 

The new people are then handed a large tome of printed material; static, cold, lifeless. They are sent to a corner and must read all past discussions before they can come up with something that has not "BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE."

 

Here's an idea (and THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE): If a conversation has no replies after six months, why not let someone bring it up again in a new thread?

 

Disadvantages of the bumping up old threads: Conversations are ongoing and will drift from their original topic. New comments enter the conversation and participants react. When the thread dies, it takes all the old jokes and conflicts with it to it's grave. Resurrecting old threads will resurrect little of how the thread "felt" before it's demise. People new to the board can't jump right in to an old dead thread. They never get their balance. The thread rises momentarily and soon falls to a quick (re-)death. Old threads, certainly those with hundreds of replies, are bloated things, fearful things for new people to join. The threads are years in age and difficult to manage. When they die, they are just dead bloated threads. Bumping old threads is not like beating a dead horse, it's like tring to stand the dead horse on it's feet and expecting to ride it.

 

Advantages of letting people discuss things that haven't been discussed in six months: The current population of the board consists of many members who were not around six months ago. They get to participate in a living breating conversation who's participants are here in the now. Jokes enter the threads and participants give and get feedback on these jokes. The same goes for conflicts, differences of opinions, or just deep discourse; exchanges are fully functional two-way streets. Further, new threads have a living feel to them. New people are excited about participating in new threads. They feel like they've been there since the beginning. Well, because they HAVE been there from the beginning.

 

Are you an Old Timer? See some topics that have "BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE"? What if you let the thread live instead of trying to kill it? What if you let the people who are here, now, discuss the topic at hand? No. Old Timers don't do that. Old Timers at the coctail party can't stand it if the new arrivals stand in the corner beginning their own conversations on topics that have "BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE." Such conversations must be stopped.

 

So, if the only thing you can contribute to the thread is "THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE" what have you done for the board? I submit that you are doing nothing for the board; much less for the thread in question; and less than that for the original thread. The only thing that improves is your own self-image. You're the self-appointed guardian who ensures that new threads are killed, and old threads are referenced. Thank you. You've made you feel much better.

 

Disagree? Feel free to comment. Want to tell me this has been discussed before? Well, read the second sentence of this thread because I've already discussed that particular angle.

 

Again, this is directed at no particular person for no particular reason. It's just my observation of every "Old Timer" I've ever met over the past 14 years.

[+Skip_]

I'm sorry, but this topic has already been discussed before.

[+BillsBayou]

Dirty rotten Old Timer, Skip.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I agree. That's why I wrote this thread some time ago. Often times, a newbie will have a fresh perspective and they can't share it if everyone points them to a year-old thread.

 

However, there are some topics that come up every week. A n00b should search at least that far back before starting a new thread. The search default is for topics within the last month.

[+Anonymous']

I hate seeing repeat threads up all the time.

[+Jamie Z]

it's not unlike showing up late to a cocktail party.

I disagree almost completely. It's very much unlike showing up late to a cocktail party.

 

A great and powerful thing about discussion boards is that everything is documented. Just about everything said about geocaching since its inception can be found with the click of a few keys. It's amazing.

 

To discount the people who have discussed a topic sometime in the past is a great misuse of the internet. Those archives are like a library. They're a tremendous resource.

 

This doesn't mean you can't add to the discussion by any means.

 

I think when people offer a markwell, or suggest that the topic has been discussed, they are not discouraging further discussion, but they are encouraging the poster to check out the information already available and then to add to it. Your interpretation that "old timers" are suggestion that the conversation terminate is incorrect.

 

You're right that lively discussions are fun and interesting, but two threads don't make single topic any more interesting than one thread.

 

Jamie

[+StarBrand]

Wow!!! Angst alert!!!!

 

I don't mind so long as you searched back 30 to 90 days.......

[+BillsBayou]

two threads don't make single topic any more interesting than one thread

 

I agree with you there. Same goes for Sax's earlier comment. Multiple threads posted within a short time do nothing for the topic. In fact, it quite often destroys constructive conversations. My complaint is when the Old Timers post links to old threads to which nothing has been added in many months. It's there that new threads shine more than bumped old threads.

[Angst]

Wow!!! Angst alert!!!!

 

I don't mind so long as you searched back 30 to 90 days.......

Huh? Did you need something?

[A^2]

If you see a thread with a topic that you feel has already been discussed, why click on it?

 

If you do click on a thread and discover it's one you feel is already covered, why bother posting to it?

 

It would seem that redundant threads should perish from lack-of-activity if people simply let them die.

[+Pasha]

When Madonna speaks, people listen.

 

(that is Madonna, right?)

[+Miragee]

A few weeks back someone resurrected a really old thread and then people complained about how dusty their computers got from that old, dusty thread.

[+carleenp]

I don't care if things get discussed over and over. I just skip repeat threads if it all seems old or in some cases provide a link to past threads that have good information. It makes sense to lock duplicate threads that are close together though or when there are several going on the same topic in several forums. It keeps the discussion in one place.

 

With bumped threads that are quite old, it is nice to note that it is bumped when done so. That way people don't reply to the OP so much and reply to the person who bumped since sometimes the OP is no longer around.

[+BillsBayou]

I've noticed that with old threads, especially inflamatory threads, if they get bumped, you end up with a new flame-fest directed towards the original poster. Nevermind that the OP hasn't been seen on the boards in a year, they just keep flaming him/her/it. Meanwhile, people who are paying attention to the fact that the thread is resurrected and not fresh flame-bait, just kick back, have some popcorn, laugh, and watch the noobs flame away.

 

It's a general problem across the Internet.

 

On some OTHER boards where I'M the Old Timer, I myself will point out that it's an old topic, BUT (my big BUT), I do take the time to address the OP's issues with the tired subject. If the board wishes to discuss the issue again, it get's discussed. Other Old Timers keep chiming in with their complaints, but I figure if there's an interest in the topic, let it ride.

[bug and snake]

If I get this, there will come a time when everything will have been said and can be referenced so that forums will not be needed. Ah, the sum of all human knowledge.

 

Personally, I am willing to have someone post anything of even remote relevance because even if it was posted last week it may well trigger a thought for me simply by being expressed in a slightly different way. In the event that a particular thread is not holding my interest I will skip over it. That is a natural turn of events and is a sort of easily and automatically applied filter.

 

This is a hobby and one of the things about hobbies is that people like to discuss their hobbies over and over - it's part of the whole experience, part of the immersion. Does it matter if something is discussed a couple of times in the same month?

 

There are essentially three types of post to a thread. Those are facts and opinions and questions. If a forum topic were in the form of a database and there were constructions that could make searching close to foolproof for all, then a single mention would be enough. But then we would not be looking at a forum anymore, it would be a knowledge base. Surely a forum is a place to come and chat and to express an opinion. If a question is asked in this environment then it can be seen as an expression of the faith that the person asking holds on the opinions and/or knowledge of other members of the forum.

 

Read Carleenp's contribution above. That is a great attitude to the whole subject. Live and let live.

Edited April 30, 2005 by bug and snake

[+Mopar]

two threads don't make single topic any more interesting than one thread

 

I agree with you there. Same goes for Sax's earlier comment. Multiple threads posted within a short time do nothing for the topic. In fact, it quite often destroys constructive conversations. My complaint is when the Old Timers post links to old threads to which nothing has been added in many months. It's there that new threads shine more than bumped old threads.

Your complaint was also answered in Jamie's post, but you seem to have ignored that part of it.

A great and powerful thing about discussion boards is that everything is documented. Just about everything said about geocaching since its inception can be found with the click of a few keys. It's amazing.

 

To discount the people who have discussed a topic sometime in the past is a great misuse of the internet. Those archives are like a library. They're a tremendous resource.

 

This doesn't mean you can't add to the discussion by any means.

 

I think when people offer a markwell, or suggest that the topic has been discussed, they are not discouraging further discussion, but they are encouraging the poster to check out the information already available and then to add to it. Your interpretation that "old timers" are suggestion that the conversation terminate is incorrect.

[+briansnat]

Suddenly a loud voice booms out THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE! YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DISCUSS WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE

 

When does this happen? I must have missed it.

 

I've seen people pointing out older threads that may answer someone's question or have pertinent information.

 

I've seen people get a bit annoyed and point out that the question would have easily been answered had the person bothered to use the search function (when you've answered the question about whether its OK to take a GPS on an airplane, or what you carry in your pack, several times a month for three years that's somewhat understandable).

 

I've seen threads locked because the topic is already in active discussion.

 

But I don't recall someone attempting to shut down a discussion simply because its been discussed before. Can you give examples?

 

Edit: I just read Jamie's post and agree with his take on things.

Edited April 30, 2005 by briansnat

[+IVxIV]

This must be one of the reasons why so many people here get excited when a manufacturere creates a new series/model of GPSr.. Fresh topic meat is being dropped onto the fire

 

Oh by the way, the Lowrance iFinder PhDc should be out soon

[+Robespierre]

this is a prime example..........those of us who don't wish to be part of it should not complain, but just say, "bye."

[+AtoZ]

This is funny as I have been blasted becauce I tried to start a thread on a topic ad had hoped to put a diffearnat stint on it but because when some people read a posting they do NOT really read it they just skim it through there rose colored glasses and then BLAST the person for starting a thread.

The other reason new threads start is ther are NEW people and they want to be a part of the commumity but there are people that have no idea what community is and they just blast away because that is how they get there kicks, they can note even understand when some one is on there side because they do not read post.

If you go to the Getting Started FOrum it is the same questions and over and over and over but that is execptable then folks come here and they are blasted for starting a thread that someone feesl is a repeat.

I guess if you see a thread that YOU feel is a repeat DON'T read it. But some folks just cant seem to do that.

cheers

[+JohnnyVegas]

I disagree almost completely. It's very much unlike showing up late to a cocktail party.

 

thats right, when you show up late to a cocktail party you have to play catch up to get as wasted as eveyone else

 

Edit to add: I might just start this topic again in July

Edited April 30, 2005 by JohnnyVegas

[+Lil Devil]

Hasn't this all been discussed before?

[+leatherman]

Hasn't this all been discussed before?

No kidding! Why was this repeat topic started?

[uber_bike_geek]

Hasn't this all been discussed before?

No kidding! Why was this repeat topic started?

Anyone want to offer up a markwell or two and shut this poor, tired old topic down??

 

Sorry, I just HAD to put in my $0.02 (USD)!

 

Happy Caching

Jeff

[Dr123d]

This is funny as I have been blasted becauce I tried to start a thread on a topic ad had hoped to put a diffearnat stint on it but because when some people read a posting they do NOT really read it they just skim it through there rose colored glasses and then BLAST the person for starting a thread.

The other reason new threads start is ther are NEW people and they want to be a part of the commumity but there are people that have no idea what community is and they just blast away because that is how they get there kicks, they can note even understand when some one is on there side because they do not read post.

If you go to the Getting Started FOrum it is the same questions and over and over and over but that is execptable then folks come here and they are blasted for starting a thread that someone feesl is a repeat.

I guess if you see a thread that YOU feel is a repeat DON'T read it. But some folks just cant seem to do that.

cheers

You said it and I agree. Some regulars don't understand the effect they are having on new people. I get upset when I run into people on the trail and they are not interested in reading let alone posting here because of the attitude of some of us. It's sad but true. Ive stopped telling people to post their questions here that I cant answer for them.

[+leatherman]

I get upset when I run into people on the trail and they are not interested in reading let alone posting here because of the attitude of some of us. It's sad but true.

The only sad part is their intimidation.

 

From a tech point of view I have come to the conclusion that the majority of people are intimidated because they have a hard time navigating the web pages and their own computer. There is a very large part of the computer using masses that are only capable of successfully using email. Even that is a task.

 

My friend, who is a moderate computer user, still has an aversion to browsing the forums. Not even enough to experience the so called attitudes of the old timers. Rather than admit that he has trouble with navigating the site, he would rather take my time to answer old questions.

 

A surprisingly small percentage of people are experienced enough to browse and search for information, about computers or web info, without seeking direct person to person[or tech support] interaction. Same goes for the forums. Rather than search for info, they start tired repetitive topics. What GPS should I buy? Blah, blah...

 

oops...

Edited April 30, 2005 by leatherman

[+Miragee]

. . . A surprisingly small percentage of people are experienced enough to browse and search for information, about computers or web info, without seeking direct person to person[or tech support] interaction. Same goes for the forums. Rather than search for info, they start tired repetitive topics.[/color] What GPS should I buy? Blah, blah...

This is a really good point.

 

Because some of the people who venture here are so new, shouldn't we given them a big "Welcome to the Forums" greeting and then kindly direct them to the Search button, or include the link to a semi-recent topic for them, or remind them of the "Pinned" topics without disparaging, and discouraging them?

 

If something isn't on the top of the "Getting Started" or "Geocaching Topics" page, a new forum user might not even know their question has just been asked, and answered three days earlier.

[+Team Cotati]

'Discussing' is one thing, 'Ranting' is quite another. One thing is clear to me, when newbees ask a straight forward question, give them a straight forward answer. Not 45 different versions of the same answer and not send them off to some historical document. Just give the information that they requested. Why this seems to be so difficult is beyond me. Very few inquiries, especially those from newbees warrant the generation of a 'discussion' much less a three day 'rant' session, the majority of which is nothing more than personal opinion.

 

God help us all should some newbee today ask the golden question: "Which GPSr is best" or my personal favorite, "What type batteries should I use".

Edited April 30, 2005 by Team cotati697

[+leatherman]

. . . A surprisingly small percentage of people are experienced enough to browse and search for information, about computers or web info, without seeking direct person to person[or tech support] interaction. Same goes for the forums. Rather than search for info, they start tired repetitive topics.[/color] What GPS should I buy? Blah, blah...

This is a really good point.

 

Because some of the people who venture here are so new, shouldn't we given them a big "Welcome to the Forums" greeting and then kindly direct them to the Search button, or include the link to a semi-recent topic for them, or remind them of the "Pinned" topics without disparaging, and discouraging them?

 

If something isn't on the top of the "Getting Started" or "Geocaching Topics" page, a new forum user might not even know their question has just been asked, and answered three days earlier.

Yes.

 

Markwelling is not rude. Neither is bumping an old thread. Many people have not read it.

[+leatherman]

Very few inquiries, especially those from newbees warrant the generation of a 'discussion' much less a three day 'rant' session, the majority of which is nothing more than personal opinion.

True, true...

[+Team Cotati]

Markwelling is rude, especially to newbees.

 

Welcome.....just don't bother us.

Edited April 30, 2005 by Team cotati697

[umc]

The bottom line is that the same questions will always be asked over and over and over again, there is no getting around that nor does there need to be. Repetitive questions don't hurt anyone and if you can't answer it in a polite honest way then don't, just stay out of it. Don't be rude and point out how it's been discussed already, don't be rude and tell someone to use the search feature, there is no reason for that behavior. If it irritates you that someone is asking a question that someone just asked the day prior then step away from the computer, get outside because there are more important things you should be worrying about.

 

These forums move very fast and unless you're sitting here reading every thread 24/7 you'll miss something, it's bound to happen and that's ok. Ask away and if someone is rude tell them to stick it.

[+Cheminer Will]

What I think is sometimes forgotten is the variability of search results. I ALWAYS search before posting any question. That being said, I occasionally post a question that I quickly find out has been asked and answered before. Something in the way I searched did not not allow me to find the answer myself in my search results.

 

Yes, sometimes people are rude about this. But usually someone will just post a link to the old thread and I am gratefully on my way.

[umc]

Markwelling is rude, especially to newbees.

Markwelling is not rude, nor is Markwell for that matter. Markwelling can be done in a rude way, sure but when done in the proper fashion like Markwell does it's a very helpful thing.

 

Saying "go read this thread stupid, it's been discussed before" would be an example of rude Markwelling.

 

Saying "hey, you'll probably get some different views on that in the thread you created but if you want to see what others have said in the past about this topic you can check out these links. The other benefit is that you won't have to wait to get a lot of replies because those threads already have them. Oh and by the way, on the same topic, I see you're new here and maybe you didn't notice the search button on the top right of the page, that can save you some time too but I agree it's always nice to get fresh perspectives."

 

You can see the difference and one is easier than the other which is why you probably see more of the rude form than the other. A true "Markwell" would follow my second example.

[+leatherman]

Maybe we need a new kind of moderator!

 

Someone that scans topics for repetitive inquiries, and cuts and pastes replies. Then closes the topic. Short direct, preventing the unnesessary hijacking.

 

No Hijacking!

[umc]

Maybe we need a new kind of moderator!

 

Someone that scans topics for repetitive inquiries, and cuts and pastes replies. Then closes the topic. Short direct, preventing the unnesessary hijacking.

 

No Hijacking!

You're hired!!!!!

[+AuntieWeasel]

If something isn't on the top of the "Getting Started" or "Geocaching Topics" page, a new forum user might not even know their question has just been asked, and answered three days earlier.

If it's fallen off the bottom of the page, for sure. The search function isn't entirely congenial (mainly because it defaults the to past 30 days). But, more fundamentally, a real newbie may not even know what keywords would be good to search. Yes, sure, even a newbie probably realizes that "what gps should I buy?" is a topic that comes up a lot. But if his real question is "what gps should I buy if I need it to hold street maps for one metropolitan area plus topo maps of Southern Indiana?" He could look for the last few "what gps?" threads and read through to see if any answers his questions, maybe bump one with a question of his own. But why make him do homework? Happily, these forums are usually very tolerant of questions, even repetitive or stupid questions.

 

I can remember being irked by markwells when I was new. Links to past threads are useful, but need to be handled with some tact. Being a newbie means you're ignorant, which is inclined to make you feel stupid, which is inclined to make you feel tetchy.

 

"Here's a brief answer to your question, and here are some links" is one thing. But I remember some of them as more one-liners: "Already been discussed here, here and here." The three links is a particularly nice touch. It makes it sound like, "dude the answer is all over the place! What's the matter with you?"

[+Team Cotati]

Markwelling is rude, especially to newbees.

Markwelling is not rude, nor is Markwell for that matter. Markwelling can be done in a rude way, sure but when done in the proper fashion like Markwell does it's a very helpful thing.

 

Saying "go read this thread stupid, it's been discussed before" would be an example of rude Markwelling.

 

Saying "hey, you'll probably get some different views on that in the thread you created but if you want to see what others have said in the past about this topic you can check out these links. The other benefit is that you won't have to wait to get a lot of replies because those threads already have them. Oh and by the way, on the same topic, I see you're new here and maybe you didn't notice the search button on the top right of the page, that can save you some time too but I agree it's always nice to get fresh perspectives."

 

You can see the difference and one is easier than the other which is why you probably see more of the rude form than the other. A true "Markwell" would follow my second example.

In some non-existant Utopia.............it certainly would.

[+carleenp]

I tend to Markwell at times and often in a simple sentence such as "here is a thread with information." I have no intention to be rude when doing so and hope it is not construed that way. Generally when I do it, the other thread(s) provide good infomation and it seems silly to re-type that for the person. I particularly like to do it for things that I know are hard to find through a search because the seach terms pull up too many threads. Once in awhile if I am too busy to search myself, I will suggest some search terms, but then I try to add my own personal response as well.

 

If this is considered rude, then in many cases my solution would have to be to not reply at all when I don't have the time or desire to repeat the information from the other thread(s). That seems rather counter-productive. Of course I have seen what are rudely stated Markwells and I would urge people to avoid that.

[+leatherman]

Maybe we need a new kind of moderator!

 

Someone that scans topics for repetitive inquiries, and cuts and pastes replies. Then closes the topic. Short direct, preventing the unnesessary hijacking.

 

No Hijacking!

You're hired!!!!!

This is certainly a full time job. We need to discuss salary and benefits.

[umc]

Maybe we need a new kind of moderator!

 

Someone that scans topics for repetitive inquiries, and cuts and pastes replies. Then closes the topic. Short direct, preventing the unnesessary hijacking.

 

No Hijacking!

You're hired!!!!!

This is certainly a full time job. We need to discuss salary and benefits.

Wonderful, since you're interested and since it would be such an undertaking I say we pay you 20% more than everyone else!!

 

Just for starters though, it can go up from there.

[+leatherman]

Maybe we need a new kind of moderator!

 

Someone that scans topics for repetitive inquiries, and cuts and pastes replies. Then closes the topic. Short direct, preventing the unnesessary hijacking.

 

No Hijacking!

You're hired!!!!!

This is certainly a full time job. We need to discuss salary and benefits.

Wonderful, since you're interested and since it would be such an undertaking I say we pay you 20% more than everyone else!!

 

Just for starters though, it can go up from there.

I suppose the benefits are the feel good spiritual enlightenment from helping others.

[+Team Cotati]

Markwelling is rude, especially to newbees.

Markwelling is not rude, nor is Markwell for that matter. Markwelling can be done in a rude way, sure but when done in the proper fashion like Markwell does it's a very helpful thing.

 

Saying "go read this thread stupid, it's been discussed before" would be an example of rude Markwelling.

 

Saying "hey, you'll probably get some different views on that in the thread you created but if you want to see what others have said in the past about this topic you can check out these links. The other benefit is that you won't have to wait to get a lot of replies because those threads already have them. Oh and by the way, on the same topic, I see you're new here and maybe you didn't notice the search button on the top right of the page, that can save you some time too but I agree it's always nice to get fresh perspectives."

 

You can see the difference and one is easier than the other which is why you probably see more of the rude form than the other. A true "Markwell" would follow my second example.

It might be useful to try and separate the term 'Markwelling' from the personage known as Markwell. Otherwise it might become confusing to others who might erroneously think that they are one in the same which they are definitely not.

 

Left field.

Edited April 30, 2005 by Team cotati697

[+leatherman]

It might be useful to try and separate the term 'Markwelling' from the personage known as Markwell. Otherwise it might become confusing to others who might erroneously think that they are one in the same which they are definitely not.

 

Left field.

Hit the dugout, and leave well enough alone.

Edited April 30, 2005 by leatherman

[+New England n00b]

I agree. That's why I wrote this thread some time ago. Often times, a newbie will have a fresh perspective and they can't share it if everyone points them to a year-old thread.

 

However, there are some topics that come up every week. A n00b should search at least that far back before starting a new thread. The search default is for topics within the last month.

Alright, I'm late to the thread, but come on Saxman... How come *I* have to search and noone else does?

 

A^2 - nice avatar

[+Team Cotati]

It might be useful to try and separate the term 'Markwelling' from the personage known as Markwell. Otherwise it might become confusing to others who might erroneously think that they are one in the same which they are definitely not.

 

Left field.

Hit the dugout, and leave well enough alone.

No thanks. But I do appreciate your thoughtful feedback.

[+MDAgent]

I’ve never been worried about being markwelled. But now I’m scared to death. I haven’t figured out what it is from these posts… but it sounds painful.

 

Also, I’ve never heard of anything “new” under the sun.

 

I deeply appreciate the topic. As a “newbie,” I’m looking for interaction as well as information. I’ve done many searches in addition to the stupid posts I’ve made. Sometimes there is good information buried in the depths of the dead bloated threads, but no opportunity to ask for clarity, or offer anything new to the middle of the dead thing. Fresh discussion doesn’t require fresh topics.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I’ve never been worried about being markwelled. But now I’m scared to death. I haven’t figured out what it is from these posts… but it sounds painful.

 

Also, I’ve never heard of anything “new” under the sun.

 

I deeply appreciate the topic. As a “newbie,” I’m looking for interaction as well as information. I’ve done many searches in addition to the stupid posts I’ve made. Sometimes there is good information buried in the depths of the dead bloated threads, but no opportunity to ask for clarity, or offer anything new to the middle of the dead thing. Fresh discussion doesn’t require fresh topics.

A Markwell is just a simple link to a thread (or two or three) where teh topic has been discussed before. Sometimes, all the answers you need are right there and your topic will die. Other times, it's merely "additional history" and the new topic can continue down it's own path.

 

Topics like "How do I...?" are best served by Markwelling to the previous thread rather than typing all the instructions in again.

Topics like "What GPS...?" could be helped along with a Markwell, but recently there were some new models on the market, so those "historic" threads don't have up to date information.

[+MDAgent]

A Markwell is just a simple link to a thread (or two or three) where teh topic has been discussed before.

Well that doesn't sound bad. What's wrong with that?

[umc]

A Markwell is just a simple link to a thread (or two or three) where teh topic has been discussed before.

Well that doesn't sound bad. What's wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with it, it's just when someone does it in a jerk sort of way such as my example above.