meta-question: New threads for old?

Well, I think you're right. But I also think all we should do now a days is meta-questions, so take as you will. I just find it very very rude that people post things like that - do you really expect everyone to wade thru thousands and thousands of posts, figuring out the obtuse filing system for old threads, to make sure that "Fine Young Cannibals: C or D?" hasn't already been done? It takes hours, it's ridiculous, I'm amazed that anyone does it at all to double check whether a thread has been "done".

This has already been here :)

I think you'll find we already debated this

here

. Ha ha. No, I don't care. I generally think that it's a waste of time starting a thread when it's already going (what's wrong with being the 60th person on the thread - it's not some kind of "look at me!" contest). But I know that people find it difficult to find old threads and sometimes they get really huge and slow to download. So I really don't care. I've only twice ever used my moderator privilege to actually delete a brand new thread (and I've left it if there are already a few responses to it), and that's when it's been a direct repeat of a Classic or Dud thread that isn't already overloaded with responses.

Ally, bear in mind that some people do bother to look in the archives and it's just neater if there aren't two threads on exactly the same thing.

I would concede that I have a weird mind that in some way likes the idea of people running out of new questions (but not answers). That's my freakoidery. I like the idea of the ILM archives being a repository for a certain generation's thoughts on pop music, and the librarian in me would rather it wasn't spread across an unholy mess of new threads.

My basic point is that, as I have said before, I provide those blue writing links in the hope that they might be of interest to the person posting. I kind of assume that if they are asking the question, they'd want to see what people on ILM have said before. That's not so weird is it? Yes, personally I'd prefer it if they take the whole discussion there, but it's not really up to me. I'm just giving them the choice.

I don't think I'll ever delete a thread again, for what it's worth, unless someone asks me to. It just seemed the right thing to do at the time, and I knew the posters concerned wouldn't take it the wrong way.

the same things keep getting talke about over and over that way though. isn't it bad enuff that we got 2537 radiohead threads already? i don't really care, i would just like some new things 2 b talked about.

Nick - it's just neater if there aren't two threads on exactly the same thing - it's only neater for the bloke filing the threads... the rest of us dont give a toss...

I do, actually. I like the way threads suddenly revive. ;-)

i'm wit nick and ned on this

Problem is, some previously-done topics could/should be explored further, but most of the pre-ILE threads just disintegrate into silliness.

i also give a toss. it seems much more logical to have all the discussion on one particular topic in one place -- everyone can see all the diversity of opinions and arguments without having to go between three different threads.

So then which of you want to write a fucking search engine up so that people can find the threads without going on and on for hours looking for them, hmmmm?

The fairies did!

Beautiful.