Ever notice this about allnurses?

Published

It regulary happens that someone posts a question or brings up a topic, and is immediately told "This has been discussed before. Do a search."

Then-

When someone does a search and posts in the threads they find, someone will tell them "Did you notice how old this thread is?"

:uhoh3:

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Occ health, Med/surg, ER.

Yup, thats true! LOL.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Community Health, Med-Surg, Home Health.

Very true. Sometimes, it seems to be more preferable to begin a new thread to speak of an old issue in a new way than to respond to an old thread with new thoughts.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Very true. Sometimes, it seems to be more preferable to begin a new thread to speak of an old issue in a new way than to respond to an old thread with new thoughts.

This is true.

But a lot of the time, those threads aren't bumped as the result of a search. Something strikes someone as interesting and they post. And those are often threads in which someone has experienced a terrible personal problem, such as being fired or losing a child. Those themes resonate.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Public Health, DEI.

Yes, I have noticed it. Whenever I'm told that, I respond that although the topic has been discussed before, I wasn't part of the discussion, and I wish to be now. We don't do that in real life- refuse to answer someone's question because "I've talked about that before"!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LTC, Med/Surg, Peds, ICU, Tele.
It regulary happens that someone posts a question or brings up a topic, and is immediately told "This has been discussed before. Do a search."

Then-

When someone does a search and posts in the threads they find, someone will tell them "Did you notice how old this thread is?"

:uhoh3:

I've noticed this same thing at another board I've visited.

I think it's perfectly fine to bring up a topic that has been discussed in the past on a new thread, and I think it's rather unwelcoming to knock someone for doing so. I, personally, dislike joining in on a thread that is well established, with pages and pages of posts, since I feel like an outsider. I prefer to post in a fresher discussion. On old threads, sometimes the OP doesn't even post here anymore. :uhoh3:

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Yes, I have noticed it. Whenever I'm told that, I respond that although the topic has been discussed before, I wasn't part of the discussion, and I wish to be now. We don't do that in real life- refuse to answer someone's question because "I've talked about that before"!

Good point!:lol2:

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LTC, Med/Surg, Peds, ICU, Tele.

People don't come to Allnurses just for information, but to interact and discuss with real life people and develop online relationships that are mutually supportive. Cutting someone off by saying "We discussed that 3 years ago, look it up!" is denying them that.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I much prefer to see an old thread "revived" and discussion on the topic picked up and carried on there, to have new threads on the same topic/question started by each new person that finds us, esp. with the "dead horse" topics :) like ADN vs. BSN, whether or not to buy professional , etc.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Nursing Professional Development.

I think it depends on the nature of the topic and/or question -- and also the nature of the old threads.

For example, if someone wants to discuss an issue, then reviving the old thread may be the best way to to do that -- particularly if the old thread is not too terribly long. If the is so long (and maybe so old) that it would be impractical for people to read through it, it's probably best to start a new thread. In that case, it's best to explain why you are starting a new thread on an old topic.

If the OP just wants a simple answer to a question, then it's probably best to search the old threads for an answer and leave it at that -- no need to revive the old thread and no need to start a new one.

There is no one best way -- and some people use better judgment in these matters than others. Sometimes, it's clear that the OP didn't bother to search before posting and that understandably irritates some regular users. Sometimes, people respond to a very old OP without bothering to read the thread and without noticing that the OP got her answer years ago. That's also irritating.

Other times, there is just honest disagreement about what would be the best way to handle a new voice on an old topic.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
There is no one best way -- and some people use better judgment in these matters than others. Sometimes, it's clear that the OP didn't bother to search before posting and that understandably irritates some regular users. Sometimes, people respond to a very old OP without bothering to read the thread and without noticing that the OP got her answer years ago. That's also irritating.

There are some repetitive threads one expects - the looking for the magic number of NCLEX questions, divination of NCLEX results by which answer was wrong when - the threads that are generated by anxiety and the need for individual attention.

Personally, I get tired of answering the exact same Excelsior/TCN/Rue questions over and over and over again, in clear sight of the huge stickies with those answers. So rather than continue to get annoyed I stopped answering.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.

When a new thread is about a topic covered in an old one, I think it's kindest when someone posts a link in the new thread to the old one. A smart newbie will learn to do a search, and many users interested in the thread's topic will appreciate the convenience.

What I find more troublesome than new threads on old topics is threads with ambiguous titles. It's easier to select threads of interest when posters make the effort to create descriptive subject line; I also think it increases the signal-to-noise ratio of the search results, making redundant threads less likely.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion