View previous topic | View next topic

Check Before you Post

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

404516.  Tue Sep 09, 2008 7:01 am Reply with quote

As vaguely plausible as that sounds, do you have any evidence?


indigo fugit
404643.  Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:48 am Reply with quote

mathewhadley wrote:
Remember - you only need to introduce doubt in your audience, nobody is going to actually test anything you say provided you sound vaguely plausible.

I agree.

The ‘Potters Bar Train Crash’ was caused by lack of maintenance.

When the crash happened the guilty men said that children had loosened the bolts on the fish plates.

This was utter tosh as you would need a spanner six feet long to get the necessary torque to undo them.

Their ploy worked as it “Muddied the Water” long enough for the public outrage to die down.

404969.  Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:38 pm Reply with quote

I dont think its a huge problem surely ?

I tend to always look at posts since my last login. I dont tend to trawl through the forums anyway so if something comes up thats already been covered and it's interesting enough, then surely thats not a problem is it ?

And which way DO bats fly out of caves ?

419364.  Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:40 am Reply with quote


419418.  Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:56 am Reply with quote

Fubsy being short and wide.....

419529.  Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:44 am Reply with quote

I've never heard of wax tadpoles. would someone care to enlighten me?

IMO ducks' quacks ought to echo because they are sound and sound echoes but i am probably woefull wrong. further enlightenment?

419538.  Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:08 pm Reply with quote

"Bite the wax tadpole" is often alleged to have been a slogan used in advertising Coca Cola in China. In fact, the Coca Cola Company never used that as a slogan - although some unofficial marketing material possibly did. This one has come up several times on these forums, and the original and still the best debunkage of it was provided by Flash way back at post 10452.

And of course ducks' quacks echo. Rory Gilmore was the first to pin that one down, at post 42267.

446194.  Wed Nov 26, 2008 2:11 pm Reply with quote

I don't know how people find all these old posts - the search engine is quite antiquated - and threads veer all over the place. I give up after 10mins.

But perhaps this is something one needs a zen guide to master? Or read everything and have a great memory. Or something else...

EDIT -- Found the answer =

446223.  Wed Nov 26, 2008 2:50 pm Reply with quote

I found this - using the antiquated system;)

Most people find the search engine absolutely fantastic - I know I do.

446250.  Wed Nov 26, 2008 4:00 pm Reply with quote

Davini994 wrote:
I found this - using the antiquated system;)

Most people find the search engine absolutely fantastic - I know I do.

does that only search for topic titles though?

446273.  Wed Nov 26, 2008 5:16 pm Reply with quote

The search facility which Kieron devised - to be found here - searches for words which appear in the title of a thread or in the content of a thread. (But does not search the research forums which are not publicly viewable - this will only be relevant to members of the research team.)

The main QI forum search facility - to be found here - searches for words within posts, but does not search the titles of threads. (The posts themselves and the thread titles live in a different part of the database, or something like that. Note that this search does look at the research forums, for those to whom this is relevant.)

Last edited by suze on Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:12 pm; edited 1 time in total

446281.  Wed Nov 26, 2008 5:49 pm Reply with quote

Kieron's search does the whole thread and everything - honest! As things stand, it's super-duper.

Thanks peeps - can you put a link in that refers to Kieron's google search on the search page? No, I don't get commission.

446295.  Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:09 pm Reply with quote

Oh, it does as well - I think Kieron undersold that when he created it, because I didn't know that until just now!

I'll amend my post above so as not to be misleading. I think the issue with placing Kieron's tool on the search page is that having two separate searches could get confusing.

We do need the integral search function because the Elves use it - if a member of the research team is logged in, the forum search also indexes the special forums which only the research team can see. Kieron's search can't do that since Google obviously doesn't see those parts of the forum which aren't publicly viewable.

That said, your suggestion is a very reasonable one - I'll raise it with the IT Elf at some point.

955668.  Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:11 pm Reply with quote

time check...

1044570.  Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:54 am Reply with quote

eatcurgao, you're giving spam a bad name!

On the subject of this thread, I think a suggestion to do a search before posting is fine, but there's nothing actually wrong with repetition. It's more important that the title of the thread is clear, so that viewers can pick subjects they're actually interested in.

I might have missed an old thread that I'm interested in. But if the thread is long, do I really have to trawl thru pages and pages to make sure I'm not repeating any point?

Isn't this a bit like a person coming into the pub and having to check with everyone first about everything they've ever said before opening his mouth to express an opinion?


Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group