Should we check a person's post history before responding to their thread?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Frabjous
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
27 replies · 2K views
Frabjous
Gold Member
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
2,441
How often do you check on a person before responding? I recently responded to a new thread which I didn’t know was continuing an old discussion and didn’t like where things went.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Now I have to report both of you for not posting in English :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mcastillo356 and Evo
caz said:
Now I have to report both of you for not posting in English :wink:
Good idea! I herewith demand that all members stop talking about eigenvalues and eigenvectors all the time! Banned are also 'ansatz', 'dreck', the use of ##\mathbb{Z}##, or ##K## for fields. This list will occasionally be updated.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby, Klystron, phinds and 3 others
caz said:
Now I have to report both of you for not posting in English :wink:
Lo siento. (oops, sorry for stepping on V50's toes there...)

Now back to the OP -- what in theee world were you talking about?
 
berkeman said:
Lo siento. (oops, sorry for stepping on V50's toes there...)

Now back to the OP -- what in theee world were you talking about?
There are people who when they do not get the answer they like, go and create other threads with slightly different questions. It is really annoying when one tries to answer one of these threads and it starts to go off the rails because they are looking not for an answer, but validation.
I was curious if people checked a person’s previous posts before responding.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970
caz said:
There are people who when they do not get the answer they like, go and create other threads with slightly different questions. It is really annoying when one tries to answer one of these threads and it starts to go off the rails because they are looking not for an answer, but validation.
I was curious if people checked a person’s previous posts before responding.
I check poster histories all the time, but that's because of my Mentor tendencies. But if you ever suspect something is fishy in a post or thread, please click the Report link on the post sooner rather than later. We usually can check out the thread pretty quickly when it's reported to us. Thanks.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970 and Bystander
fresh_42 said:
Good idea! I herewith demand that all members stop talking about eigenvalues and eigenvectors all the time! Banned are also 'ansatz', 'dreck', the use of ##\mathbb{Z}##, or ##K## for fields. This list will occasionally be updated.
Could we please add gedankenexperiment to the list? Every time I see it I think someone is being thanked for an experiment.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby, Klystron, strangerep and 7 others
jtbell said:
...or someone just sneezed in the lab?
No, the German for "thanks" is danke, so gedankenexperiment should mean "thanks for the experiment"
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dlgoff and BillTre
phinds said:
No, the German for "thanks" is danke, so gedankenexperiment should mean "Gee! Thanks for the experiment"
Fixed it for you. :wink:
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Sad
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby, hutchphd, BillTre and 1 other person
The German equivalent for "God bless you" when someone sneezes is Gesundheit, so a German hears:
Sneeze
Gesundheit

What I always heard was
Sneeze
Sneeze
 
fresh_42 said:
It is pronounced: guehsoonedhite.
@phinds
Are you going to jump in at any point?
Thread heading in a northern direction now taken a path to the west.
 
pinball1970 said:
Thread heading in a northern direction now taken a path to the west.
I think the issue was, that the first two questions never have been answered, and nobody fully understood post number one. What does it mean to check on a person, and what for?
caz said:
I recently responded to a new thread which I didn’t know was continuing an old discussion
So?
caz said:
and didn’t like where things went.
In the new or in the old thread. Any links?

What is the conclusion of all this?
 
fresh_42 said:
I think the issue was, that the first two questions never have been answered, and nobody fully understood post number one. What does it mean to check on a person, and what for?

So?

In the new or in the old thread. Any links?

What is the conclusion of all this?
Q1. I mean to look at some of their previous posts to see if they are worth the effort.
Q2. It’s annoying.
Q3. New thread. The OP was stubborn in the old thread and stuck to it in the new one. No need to name names.
Q4. No conclusion. I was just trying to ask if people checked the posts of people they didn’t recognize before responding to their questions.
 
Last edited:
fresh_42 said:
I think the issue was, that the first two questions never have been answered, and nobody fully understood post number one. What does it mean to check on a person, and what for?

So?

In the new or in the old thread. Any links?

What is the conclusion of all this?
I elucidated reasons why synth drums should not have been pushed forward onto the musical community just because technology allowed.
Context played a part and I think @phinds jumped in after one or two posts to steady the thread. In my view it was not that tangential.
Not as much as yours and other posters in this instance. Was my point.
 
caz said:
I was just trying to ask if people checked the posts of people they didn’t recognize before responding to their questions.
That's a waste of time 90% of the time and since no one can tell WHICH 90% I think most of us just answer the question and move on.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Frabjous and fresh_42
caz said:
Q4. No conclusion. I was just trying to ask if people checked the posts of people they didn’t recognize before responding to their questions.
Once upon a time; have since learned to apply the ancient adage, "Do NOT feed the trolls."
 
fresh_42 said:
We do not see a necessity to bother God with it.
... especially since He/She sneezes down upon us quite frequently.
 
caz said:
I was just trying to ask if people checked the posts of people they didn’t recognize before responding to their questions.
Some opening questions can be suspicious enough to induce a preventive history check, but it's really rare. In general, if somebody wants to turn a new leaf, then I'm OK with it.

If he is not really successful with starting anew then pinging a mentor would do the trick: and so the litter would be gathered in one bin.