Hoping that this is a simple, limited and uncontentious question, I'd like to ask if MB members apply any consistent policy when they come across duplicated threads. I'm sure we've all seen them; not always, but often it's an enthusiastic newcomer who opens a thread asking,
"Has anyone here heard of the Beatles?" unaware that the Beatles have already been mentioned on MB.
(1.) Personally, I'm a bit of an archivist who likes the idea that old threads are still valid and should be resuscitated whenever possible, so my instinct is that the new thread should be closed, merged with an existing one, or at least given a link acknowledging that there has been a previous discussion. After all, building on the past has worked pretty well for western civilization, and as they apparently say in Rwanda,
"If you don't listen to your father, you'll never know what your grandfather said."
(2.) Some people seem to react differently though, and will happily post about the Beatles as if they are a brand new topic. I guess this has the merit of being easy, fresh and friendly. It reminds me of a line from a John Sebastian song, in which he sings with obvious affection,
" ...and for each new person, there's a new first time."
(3.) At present, there doesn't seem to be a very consistent policy - and maybe that's ok too. Can't think of a snappy quote for this option, but if I could it would probably say something about getting a life vs. overthinking.
So that gives us three poll possibilities. In the interests of democracy, I've tried to phrase the poll options impartially, even though I've stated my own preference pretty clearly in this OP. (i.e. vote for "merge" or die:
)
What to do about duplicated threads
Now that's tidy!
Linear Mode
