|
|
Post by option1 on Mar 9, 2016 19:23:06 GMT -6
Moderators should think about looking into allowing (or not) responses that include suggesting the OP use the search function. After all, especially in our profession, nothing is new, so if people stopped asking questions then essentially forums would soon be non-existent. There are new experiences with old chit and new people looking for that info constantly. Why not just help them out?
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 9, 2016 19:38:57 GMT -6
Moderators should think about looking into allowing (or not) responses that include suggesting the OP use the search function. After all, especially in our profession, nothing is new, so if people stopped asking questions then essentially forums would soon be non-existent. There are new experiences with old chit and new people looking for that info constantly. Why not just help them out? Most of the time that somebody says that it's because there was a discussion recently. I've seen two questions about the same subject back to back. |
|
|
|
Post by option1 on Mar 9, 2016 20:02:38 GMT -6
Moderators should think about looking into allowing (or not) responses that include suggesting the OP use the search function. After all, especially in our profession, nothing is new, so if people stopped asking questions then essentially forums would soon be non-existent. There are new experiences with old chit and new people looking for that info constantly. Why not just help them out? Most of the time that somebody says that it's because there was a discussion recently. I've seen two questions about the same subject back to back. I just read a thread that suggested "through the years." |
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 9, 2016 20:05:04 GMT -6
If you make a new thread about rip/Liz match, MSU quarters, or TCU terminology on the defensive side. Expect this response.
It's talked about everywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Mar 9, 2016 20:47:51 GMT -6
I see both sides of this argument. On the one hand bringing new ideas to the discussion should be valuable so you don't want to always be referring people to the search function, but on the other hand a fully fleshed out discussion from the search function can be much more efficient because the person with the question can read through an entire thread full of questions and answers.
Starting a new thread can take time to be seem by several people, get responses, ask follow up questions etc. Unless the thread is about marriage advice, those fill with responses quickly!
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 9, 2016 21:01:52 GMT -6
Most of the time that somebody says that it's because there was a discussion recently. I've seen two questions about the same subject back to back. I just read a thread that suggested "through the years." Huh? |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 10, 2016 6:45:54 GMT -6
The more appropriate response may be to do the search for the OP and provide the links as your response.
I fully agree its important to let new blood do their thing and interact with new blood. I agree that sometimes its best for board regulars to not post/respond to let that happen.
I've also seen countless times when there are fully detailed responses given by all sorts of coaches articulating ZONE READ in all its minutiae .....only for some slappy to completely ignore that and start a thread, "ANYONE EVER HEARD OF THE ZONE READ?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2016 6:50:11 GMT -6
The search function is a little buggy, though. I don't blame people for missing things if they try relying on it.
What does kill me is when there are 3 Pistol Flexbone threads going on the first page of the General Offense board and someone will pop up to post another one right on top of those.
|
|
coachpsl
Sophomore Member
“Don’t Cuss. Don’t argue with officials. And don’t lose the game.” -John Heisman
Posts: 197
|
Post by coachpsl on Mar 10, 2016 7:17:59 GMT -6
I would suggest a good amount of "lurking" for any newbie before starting threads. After you read one, put your question in that old thread and it'll bring it all back to the top.
-I was probably guilty of this exact thing when I first got on this forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparkey on Mar 10, 2016 7:40:45 GMT -6
Speaking of the search function, why make something so simple, so complicated? Take about 1 1/2 days to fill the boxes out!
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Mar 10, 2016 8:11:41 GMT -6
Speaking of the search function, why make something so simple, so complicated? Take about 1 1/2 days to fill the boxes out! I have given up complaing about the search functionality. |
|
|
|
Post by Sparkey on Mar 10, 2016 8:18:55 GMT -6
Speaking of the search function, why make something so simple, so complicated? Take about 1 1/2 days to fill the boxes out! I have given up complaing about the search functionality. Agree! It's a pain in the butt! |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Mar 10, 2016 8:21:26 GMT -6
Before starting a new thread a prospective poster should at least scroll through first few Index pages of the appropriate board ('Running Game', 'Secondary', etc.) to see what has been discussed recently.
|
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Mar 10, 2016 8:25:33 GMT -6
If the search feature didn't remind me of Netscape Alta Vista via 1998 then I'd be willing to use it more. It sucks, really bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Mar 10, 2016 8:52:56 GMT -6
I've read on here that if you go to Google and search coach huey zone read, or whatever the topic is that it works better, but never actually tried it myself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2016 8:55:15 GMT -6
I've read on here that if you go to Google and search coach huey zone read, or whatever the topic is that it works better, but never actually tried it myself. It does. I've done that a bunch of times on my own. |
|
|
|
Post by option1 on Mar 10, 2016 8:59:31 GMT -6
I just read a thread that suggested "through the years." Huh? Yes, a "research function" response was validated by also suggesting that the old "through the years" information would/should be sufficient to answer the question. I want to read the newest information and experiences, along with the old to build a solid knowledge base.
I also agree that the search function on most forums is bad and in many cases not functional at all.
I like Brophy's idea of guiding answers to questions by suggesting and pointing out specific links. I think this may lead to a better discussion on particular threads.
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Mar 10, 2016 9:06:31 GMT -6
I've read on here that if you go to Google and search coach huey zone read, or whatever the topic is that it works better, but never actually tried it myself. It does. I've done that a bunch of times on my own. It works better, but not a lot better. |
|
|
|
Post by CoachWeitz on Mar 10, 2016 9:10:37 GMT -6
I believe we have already had this discussion, please use the search function to search about the search function.
The one major thing that helped me with the search function was to check the box to have results displayed as threads not posts.
I do think sometimes it's good to bring up a topic that's already been discussed and get some new blood flowing, but before creating a new thread you should probably read the old thread, include that you have looked at the old thread and maybe say something about has anything changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Mar 10, 2016 9:10:43 GMT -6
For using Google to search huey you want to use the following
Search phrase site:coachhuey.com
Ex:
zone read site:coachhuey.com
"zone read" site:coachhuey.com
|
|
|
|
Post by agap on Mar 10, 2016 14:47:51 GMT -6
The last time I wanted to find something out, I did a search for it. I ended up bookmarking about 30 different threads on the topic and by the time I was finished reading everything, I didn't have any other questions and I learned more than I intended. There are a lot of threads about specific topics that you can't really search for. But when there's a thread started about how to run Quarters like MSU, there will probably be 100 threads that come up when you search for it. There's no point in starting the 101st thread about the same thing.
There's a four-page thread that's towards the top of the General Defensive Topics. It was started almost four years ago. Why not search for it, find the old thread, and continue the discussion on there? It's easier to look through one long thread then having to look through/bookmark 20 different threads about the same topic.
|
|
