TubeNet

I was contemplating how the ole tubenet works today and I had a thought...

Whenever someone asks a question that has been asked in the past few years there's usually at least a few posts from people pointing to the archives. What's the deal with this? I'd imagine that most of us know that we have that option. But here's my question... If we always are pushing the view that what has been decided on earlier as correct, aren't we taking the chance on missing a new idea or concept on that? I mean I think we all know that there's a lot of different kinds of posters on here and I'd bet that most of us (regardless what my earlier poll says) do not visit all the time, meaning that many of the topics on here we probalby don't even get to reading. With that being the case, wouldn't it be good to revisit topics here and there? If nothing else, for the advancement of thought and understanding of our artform? Again... maybe there's another solid viewpoint that is the standard norm...

I personally wonder what other knowlege is out there that we might be missing because of our impatience with 'common knowlege' (ect... ) posts

My 2c
Jim Langenberg

rascaljim wrote:But here's my question... If we always are pushing the view that what has been decided on earlier as correct, aren't we taking the chance on missing a new idea or concept on that?

Consider:

Example A: My teacher says that CC tubas are more suited to sharp keys and BBb tubas are better for flat keys.

Example B: I've reviewed the archives, and I see many arguments for and against the notion that CC tubas are better for orchestral keys. Can someone step me through why this would be? I couldn't find an explanation that I could understand.

or

Example C: Will I change the sound of my tuba if I remove the lacquer?

Example D: I see in the archives where Matt Walters presented research done by Lawson that said that horns sound different with a lacquered bell (or not), and there was also mention in the archives that Schilke performed the same test with trumpets and found a possible difference between heavy lacquer and no lacquer in trumpets. And I've seen statements that it wouldn't apply to tubas. Why not?

In the examples that show a little research of the archives, the new perspectives that we agree are valuable become the starting point of the new thread, rather than the ending point, because the rehash is summarized by the questioner. It's the reason why researchers are required to conduct literature reviews before formulating their hypotheses.

Plus, when you ask a question that reflects prior effort, you are more apt to encourage useful new effort in the responses.

There are many subjects that are very difficult to find in the archives without some clever searching, but as a group we are pretty forgiving about that, I think. We have to admit that the archives are not easily searched (even though in my examples above, I found all the things I used in the example in various archive searches I've done in the last few weeks).

Even so, it's sometimes amusing to discover that the young folks who value their ability to use the Internet find their own search skills lacking, being shown up by we old farts who supposedly know nothing.

It's not so bad on Tubenet, actually. I spent a little time in a Canon digital camera forum after buying a digital SLR, and the membership of that group was doubling every week or so. Four or five times a day there would be a question that had been thoroughly answered sometimes that morning about, say, the effect of the smaller sensor compared with full-frame film on the focal length of the lens. After a week of that, those who could explain the answer gave up. Newbies weren't even willing to look down the first page of the forum. And then they would argue the same misconception that had been thoroughly debunked just the previous day. That can get old. And the result is that the quality of the answers goes down, not up.

Rick "usually willing to repeat answers frequently" Denney

I'd like to refer you to the archives for more discussion on this topic

viewtopic.php?t=5564&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Adam C. wrote:I'd like to refer you to the archives for more discussion on this topic

viewtopic.php?t=5564&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Adam C. wrote:I'd like to refer you to the archives for more discussion on this topic

viewtopic.php?t=5564&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

viewtopic.php?p=40907#40907

I think it sometimes it depends on who's asking.
If you have a low post count or are under a certain age, there are many old timers who run every question through a credibility filter. Some people are too quick in assuming naivety over inexperience.
I do agree with Rick in that a search will often provide enough background on a topic to allow a person to ask the right questions. The problem is that far too often the results aren't always specific enough (barring the old chestnuts like "BBb vs CC" etc...). Sometimes, I have to catch myself before I lean on a newbie for asking what many see as newbie questions. I am a member of another board where I am the newbie and I get the same treatment. The thing is, I know how to use the search button and I do very thorough research before launching a new thread (tubenet has taught me that). I still get the "check the archives" speech or I am altogether ignored.
BBS boards are like schoolyards without the teachers. The older kids sometimes have little patience younger ones.

Rick Denney wrote:It's not so bad on Tubenet, actually. I spent a little time in a Canon digital camera forum after buying a digital SLR, and the membership of that group was doubling every week or so. Four or five times a day there would be a question that had been thoroughly answered sometimes that morning ...

That sounds as bad as the forums at iPodLounge. Criminy, you'd think that people never thought to look in the manual or even press buttons before Googling around and finding that site, registering, then posting their question -- without even checking iPodLounge's own FAQ pages.

At least people here don't seem to be getting upset when someone drags up a long-gone thread. After all, that person did do a search.