The ATS Thread Version of (You) Understood

"Mods, I ran a search, but the search function never shows me anything, so if this has already been posted, please delete. If this is in the wrong forum, my apologies, please feel free to move it."

I'm not actually saying that - in truth, I did not perform a search, and I'm fairly certain this is the right forum (rant), because, like most rants, it's a personal annoyance which doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. So here it is, short and sweet:

My plea to all thread starters: PLEASE stop starting threads with these statements. Like "(You) Understood", you can leave off the unnecessary, built-in, assumed/understood statements. If the topic has already been posted, the thread will be closed and visitors will be directed to the existing thread. If it is in the wrong forum, it will be moved. It does not require your instructions or permission. It's gotten silly how many threads start with such statements. Let's put a stop to it, and make the world a better place.

a reply to: dogstar23Oh, you mean just like the way you just started this thread with appologies" if it's in the wrong forum move it".

a reply to: dogstar23

Sorry, I am not "understanding" this thread or why this is the top issue you feel rant worthy.

a reply to: dogstar23

SkepticOverlord did a thread on this a while ago. It is a major pet peeve of his.

Do you know what my number-one pet peeve with some new threads might be?

No? Well, I'll tell you.

It's threads that begin with something like this: "Mods, I searched and couldn't find if this was already posted, or even if I posted this in the right forum, so please feel free to move it or something."

Actually, I cringe and and my hands compulsively reach for the keyboard in a turrets-like spasm with a overwhelming urge to move the thread to the trash.

The most important thing to making your threads matter is that first sentence. It's what search engines index. It's what readers first see. And that type of thread-opener makes no sense.


The easiest way to see if your thread might be a repeat of what's been recently posted is to click the new button in the main menu. It delivers a chronologically sorted list of new threads.


But if you must put that type of "PSA" message in your opening post -- please put it at end of your post. Mrs. Overlord will thank you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: crayzeed

He wrote it as an example of why he is ranting.

if you are using the program noscript, you need to allow the script ajax.googleapis.com for the search function to work properly.

If you typed in bad tags, then I don't know what to tell you.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: dogstar23Oh, you mean just like the way you just started this thread with appologies" if it's in the wrong forum move it".

Well...yes, but it seems you missed most of the thread, which I thought clearly explained the first paragraph as a demonstration of what I'm referring to.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: dogstar23

Sorry, I am not "understanding" this thread or why this is the top issue you feel rant worthy.

I'm not sure what led you to believe this is the top issue I feel rant worthy, other than it being the thing which happened to be an annoyance to me at the moment I decided to start the thread. As far as being "rant worthy" - aren't nearly all of the rants basically whining about petty grievances, whether political, behavioral, or otherwise?

As to what the thread is about, if it is difficult to understand the simple and obvious redundancy and unnecessary nature of the "disclaimers" as I wrote it, check the quote by SkepticOverlord by stosh64 which I was unaware of - better reasoning and probably better explained.

As a further example, since it has been written about before, this thread might well be closed. The potential closing of the thread does not require my instruction nor my approval. It is already assumed and known this can happen if the thread is repetitive of another.

I'll add - I didn't try a search because if I had searched the text of my first line or a similar, I knew there would be hundreds of threads with similar disclaimers.

Based on the statement in SO's thread that "It's what search engines index.", I did a Google search just to see what came up.



I'm sure that the reason a lot of people (especially new people) will start a thread that way is because there seems to be a posse of thread police ready to jump in with some asinine statement about it being already posted or in the wrong forum.

originally posted by: N3k9Ni
Based on the statement in SO's thread that "It's what search engines index.", I did a Google search just to see what came up.

I'm sure that the reason a lot of people (especially new people) will start a thread that way is because there seems to be a posse of thread police ready to jump in with some asinine statement about it being already posted or in the wrong forum.

Very good point, and in fact, I believe my first thread may have had some similar disclaimer as I couldn't really figure out how to start a thread (I get lost easily in new buildings, websites, etc.) ha!

a reply to: stosh64

lol looks like dogstar didn't do a search....

That said It peeves me also, as does every intro thread "long time lurker thought I'd finally sign up "

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: stosh64

lol looks like dogstar didn't do a search....

That said It peeves me also, as does every intro thread "long time lurker thought I'd finally sign up "

Thinking about it a bit after seeing stosh's post, I feel like the memory of SO's post is coming back and I wouldn't be shocked if I had even responded in that thread (please don't check, anyone, the sheepishness has already set in)

As for the "long time lurkers", my local sports radio station has recently taken to overly-dramatic on-air sighs every time they get the classic "long time listener, first time caller" intro lol.

a reply to: dogstar23

Let me be clearer then. This is nonsensical to waste a rant on. People are homeless, victimized, hungry, but you feel this topic is more import to rant about. It's priority under 1,000,000 different issues, IMO.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: dogstar23

Let me be clearer then. This is nonsensical to waste a rant on. People are homeless, victimized, hungry, but you feel this topic is more import to rant about. It's priority under 1,000,000 different issues, IMO.

Absolutely ridiculous. Do you feel it was that important to save a few electrons that might have made the difference in one of your list of One Million More Important Topics?

Why don't you take a look at some of the topics in the "RANT" forum? There's rants about disdain for snow, rants about individual's personal issues with absolutely no bearing or relation to most of our lives. That's what's on the minds of the people writing the rants. It is perfectly OK for people to write about their disdain for snow, even though children are being born with birth defects. It is OK for people to struggle with their responses to the sometimes baffling behavior of family members while neighborhoods in Syria are being bombed.

Storage space and bandwidth aren't so limited that topics need to be restricted to Earth-shattering topics of victimhood or whatever it is you think should take up 100% of the available media. My guess is there's a website out there which only discusses the top 10 most tragic current events and nothing else. If not, maybe someone should start one - apparently there is a market out there: people who only have room for an extremely-limited viewpoint to be presented.

Sheesh.