A freeper's observation: Duplicate thread postings.

E.G.C.

[RonDog]

I recall seeing recently that a duplicate thread was "locked" to prevent future replies, forcing would-be posters to go to the ORIGINAL thread.

Kewl. THAT policy would really help focus the discussion of truly "Breaking" news - like the day that Rush announced his deafness.

There were so many duplicate posts that it was difficult to know which of them to follow.

[Hank Kerchief]

The reason is because it takes up lots of valuable bandwidth. Bandwidth that could be used for other articles just as vitally important as the ones being posted.

I keep seeing the term "bandwidth" being used with regard to the number of posts, but this is probably a mistake. "bandwidth" pertains to transmission capacity, not storage. The number of posts has nothing to do with bandwidth. It certainly could use up disk space, but not bandwidth. (Please don't tell me it takes bandwidth to download the post. Its miniscule.)

Now, here's a reason I like duplicate posts. Some of us have lives and work to do, and are unable to look at what's been posted lately every ten minutes. Sometimes a day or more will pass before we have a chance to check out the latest. By that time, some really good posts are so far down the list, we just never get to to see them. We really appreciate it when someone is thoughtful enough to repost an article that is really good so the chances of us missing it are reduced.

You are right about who has the final say, and he ought to. If he is interested in having more come to his site, he will consider what will be useful to the busy productive individuals who cannot spend all day loitering here.

BTW, if storage is the problem, there are some neat auto-compress/decompress utilities that allow stored info to be accessed just as if it weren't compressed and they save gops of disk space.

Hank

[Sidebar Moderator]

I'm sure that's what you meant, right?

Yes, but I'm not that ambitious. Right now I'd love to see just the exact duplicates eliminated....next we can work on the same articles with different titles.

Drudge is one of our biggest problems. We get the exact title from his page over and over....

Anyone thinking about posting an article from Drudge can be almost certain it's already been posted.

[Slyfox]

That's not odd. I always begin reading a magazine from the last page. I HATE trying to figure out where the table of content's pages are only to bump into the ad pages with the perforated cards that are just begging to be torn out and thrown in the trash.

I can relate.

[KneelBeforeZod]

you got that right. instead of using FBI, Osama, taxes or whatever, people like to make the topic field read "YOUR ENEMY" or "IMPORTANT!!!" or some other useless title.

I also notice that all the folks who scream "already posted" fail to notice this.

[Sidebar Moderator]

Kewl. THAT policy would really help focus the discussion of truly "Breaking" news

We've gotten cheered and chastised for doing that.

The idea came about on a discussion thread like this one, and most thought it was a good idea.

We've had a little trouble implimenting it smoothly since when those situations occur, sometimes ALL the threads get locked in the confusion, or pulled from breaking news temporarily.

FReepers are an unforgiving bunch and quick to point out our mistakes, but the feedback is very useful to us.

[mombonn]

When I sign on . . .

You mean you sign OFF?????

;-)

[Sidebar Moderator]

FReepers are an unforgiving bunch

Poor choice of words on my part.

FReepers are quick to point out our mistakes, most with the intention of making FR work better.

[snopercod]

I just post stuff from Investor's Business Daily. Since I have to type it in myself, I don't have to worry about a previous post.

Someday I may be surprised, though...

[serinde]

I, too, am one of those that checks the site a couple of times a day, reads the first page, and then gets off. I don't have time to do much more. While duplicate posts may be a bore, sometimes it helps to have copies of the popular ones. I rely on the sidebars a LOT, but they don't (and can't) cover everything.

Also, I don't usually look at threads with more than 50-100 comments. I'm sure many of them are worth reading, but I just don't have the time to read them all. Keeping track of which comments I might want to respond to - and seeing if anyone else already said what I would have said - is a major pain when the threads are too long, so I just skip them altogether. Having just one thread for every article would not help me at all.

[Revolting cat!]

Yep, and don't you just hate duplicate replies?

[Revolting cat!]

Yep, and don't you just hate duplicate replies?

[1rudeboy]

If you are surfing the web, and find a news item that is worthy of posting, and then come here and discover it's already posted, then the best thing to do is merely bump the original thread, which due to your hard work is already at your fingertips. Not only does the rest of the forum get a chance to see all the earlier comments on the original post, but someone who missed the thread the first time around is equally likely to see it than if you went ahead and posted the whole article over again. Plus, you get the occasional satisfaction of resurrecting a dormant thread. [my 2c]

[paltz]

Forgive me for having more sympathy over "duplicate posts" but this issue of those who have nothing else better to do all day but get pissed off and whine and post things like: already posted
previous post
really need to get off their high horses. Hey, If the title I plug into the search doesn't show up, guess what?...I'm posting it.

I can't control how accurate the parameters of the search are. Gee did you stop to think that the same sory in different sources have different titles?

If breaking news occurs and 20 other people are posting at the same time from 10 different sources...OH WHAAAAAA!!!!

Bandwidth? If Jim Rob needs to delete for space...fine...it's part of the hell of having a successful website..my heart is bleeding.

Do you realize how many good potential posts we don't get from people who are scared to post b/c cranky uptight freepers continually bitch about this?

I know freepers want to see 1000's of replies come from their posts, and it pisses them off, when somebody else "steals" the spotlight...get over it.....it's just a post.

[1rudeboy]

If time is precious, then you should utilize the 'Latest Articles' screen[s] instead of 'Latest Posts.' Not only do you get the first few sentences of the original post and the current number of its "replies," but you can scan hours' worth of forum activity in minutes. [my 2c]

[onedoug]

That was me E.G.C.

I'm sorry if I seemed crabby. And of course I know that FR is actually private property (to which I do contribute).

But it's also like a newspaper, for those just breezing by, perhaps as they really don't have the time to do a search. I wouldn't necessarily have even thought about that particular topic had I not just come upon it. Plus, it's nice occasionally too, to get a little more out-front and more likely read with an early response, say from #2 to 20 or so, rather than the greater chance of not being read among a plethora of responses to an earlier post.

Sidebar Moderator routinely locks threads because they've been posted earlier. Okay, but I likely wouldn't have seen it at all if not when I came upon it. And where I might've been #8 in reply, I'm rather redirected to an earlier thread where I may now become #93.

I don't think it's an ego thing. It's just nice to know you're being heard up-front where unless one is really interested in the topic, or it's breaking or something, most readers are just not going to read all the responses to a given thread.

And what was ever wrong with fresh points of view anyway?

Plus, there's a lot of bandwidth use around here that has much less to do with duplicate threads.

MiaT?

And the majority of my replies are one line, or less.

I hope I don't seem unreasonable.

And I sure would've pinged a fellow Freeper, E.G.C., if I'd had encounter with one who's issue I'd taken onto another thread.

Thank you.

[1rudeboy]

The folks who provide links to earlier, identical posts are providing a service. Not many folks return to a duplicate post to make the same comment they made on the original. If we are not informed that there is another thread out there, then their comments are ". . . lost, in time, like tears in the rain." -Rutger Hauer, Blade Runner

[my 2c; for an .avi file of this famous scene, go to the "Decker was a Replicant (Blade Runner)" bookmark on my 'Profile' page]

[paltz]

Not many folks return to a duplicate post to make the same comment they made on the original

Nothing is "lost" When somebody does a self search they will reply to whichever thread they started on in 1st place...regardless of whether it's a duplicate or not. It would get bumped to the top, and others would see it then anyway.

[1rudeboy]

Please see my #35.

[ironman]

Here's another reason to discourage duplicate posts. I once posted an article about Linda Tripp bringing suit against the White House. It gots dozens of posts in support. The same article was posted again later and it got hardly any posts. If some lurkers (or media) dropped in on the sight to see how much support Linda was getting here and only saw the second thread, they might incorrectly conclude the Freepers could care less about the development.