Searching
 

One of the rules of FT is to use search before posting. See http://www.flyertalk.com/help/rules.php#q62. I can't recall seeing a moderator enforce this rule. I have seen many people criticize posters who suggest searching, including here in Only Randy Petersen.

Why isn't there more active enforcement of this rule? It would help to increase the signal-to-noise ratio.

I know I've neglected to follow that rule too often myself. Perhaps a "Use Search Before Posting New Thread" reminder next to the "New Thread" banner, or a pop-up or something asking "Have You Searched For This Subject First?" before you can begin a new thread?

While I would personally like to see more searching done before posting, I'm not sure that the biggest problem with the signal-to-noise ratio comes from a lack of searching, but rather the increasingly nasty reactions (in certain fora) to that signal-to-noise ratio, making the signal-to-noise ratio even more out of whack.

That said, I'm also not sure just how the mods could enforce this rule (short of deleting posts) without making newbies feel even less wanted than they may already feel.

Mike

Absolutely agreed. The search feature can be quite frustrating and unintuitive (usually pulls up pages and pages of non-related information). Instead of simply flaming the individual for supposedly not performing a search, ANSWER THE QUESTION DIRECTLY (or abstain from posting). Certain forums are notorious for these kinds of attacks.

Mods should be enforcing decency standards before deleting or locking posts that have been addressed previously.

searching doesn't seem to be working for me at all at the moment, with safari and explorer on the mac, pretty sure i tried FF and explorer on pc yesterday too.

usually its just big searches that seem to not work, but right now its anything.

I have found searching with the FT search function not so helpful. Do others use "outside" search engines to look for subjects within FT?

I've seen it too. People who answer a post by suggesting a search are frequently chastised themselves for not giving a more complete answer or for not doing the search themselves.

I don't understand this. Why it lazy/rude/inconsiderate/what-have-you for someone to suggest a search but it is not lazy/rude/inconsiderate/what-have-you for someone to ask a question without trying a search first? Why should those of us who have put time into learning how to master the FT search feature be expected to perpetually search for those who aren't willing to put forth that same effort?

What exactly is wrong with answering a question by suggesting a search, if a search will net useful, up-to-date results? The suggestion to do a search is an answer to the post. Maybe it's not the answer some would like to see, but it is an answer. If others feel that it is not a good enough answer, and that the exact links or specific details should be posted, then why don't they do that instead of wasting time complaining that they don't approve of the "do a search" response?

I try to use the search function quite a bit but I find quite often that it doesn't work. I.e. it takes to search but as soon as I tell it to start searching it goes to a blank page and Internet Explorer says that it's done

Others have reported using outside engines such as google successfully. I haven't had much luck with that myself because I find the amount of results generated to be overwhelming. Instead, I persisted in trying to learn to use the FT feature. With a bit of trial and error, I have become more or less proficient with it. I believe this was time well spent because it has enabled me to access the entire wealth of information stored on FT ... without ever having to wait for anyone else to retrieve it for me.

That happens to me every so often as well. Sometimes clearing the cache helps, sometimes waiting a bit helps, sometimes phrasing the key words differntly helps, sometimes nothing seems to do any good. At that point I turn to google advanced search. (I don't google search but that's only because I haven't taken the time to learn to use it properly.)

In my ideal world, the person answering with a surly "do a search" comment would also provide the links to relevant threads, instead of wasting time complaining .

OK. Well, in my ideal world the person who disapproves of the "do a search" response will do the search themselves and provide the links to the relevant threads rather than wasting time complaining that the "do a search" response is surly.

Edited to add:

In other words, "do a search" is an answer. It is a response allowed by FT TOS that recommends a course of action that is encouraged by FT guidelines.

If anyone finds the suggestion to "do a search" inadequate, he or she is free to either: a) eloborate or b) ignore the post.

Here's a great analogy. It would be like me asking Mr. X to pass the ketchup, and Mr. Y chiming up to "get it yourself".

If you have no intention of answering a question, then putting in your crabby two cents about "doing a search" is not going to help. If you have nothing helpful to say, why post anything at all? Presumably, the poster has already tried doing a search in most cases. (Figure it would be 2 members from the AA forum who are so adamant about defending posts that flame people for not performing searches.)

Incidentally, yes, I find the google searches much more helpful than the FT searches.

I have made a suggestion that the search function be modified here but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. It's unreasonable to expect a newbie to be a proficient at using the search function as you are, there is IMHO, definitely a case for integrating a new search engine into FT. I shouldn't have to leave FT to be able to do a worthwhile search using Google.

I think if someone says "how do i do a mileage run?" some friendly and/or sarcastic comments about, "welcome, did you know there is a search button?" are in order. (although it seems that sarcasm is not big in some forums here)

if someone asks a VERY specific question, i think its ridiculous to go off about how you have to search, etc.