Re-Asking an inconclusive and long dead AskMefi Q? January 11, 2011 6:28 AM   Subscribe

What's the down-low on re-Asking and inconclusive and long dead AskMeFi query?

A few years ago I tried to ID a book on Ask MeFi. Based on the fact that I remembered only a few sparse details, it came to nothing. It's been a few years (4? 5? I think) and I figure with some new members it might not hurt to ask again.

However, I wasn't sure what the deal was with re-Asking a question you'd Asked before, especially if there was no 'Best Answer'. Thoughts? Snarky links to a FAQ I missed?
posted by GilloD to Etiquette/Policy at 6:28 AM (36 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

If this question is any indication, you should be fine to re-ask.
posted by Grither at 6:34 AM on January 11, 2011


We get tons of questions here that are essentially repeating another question. Sometimes it's because time has changed the answer, sometimes because of a small detail the asker thinks is important.

I say, with all of my not a mod powers, to go ahead and ask again. Just ask the question in the thread instead of simply linking to the old one like in the post Grither linked to.
posted by theichibun at 6:38 AM on January 11, 2011


Without naming any names, I've seen re-questioning (and re-re-questioning, and re-re-re-questioning...) happen with much shorter timeframes than years. You wouldn't even be a blip on the radar with this.
posted by Gator at 6:38 AM on January 11, 2011


The only time I've seen people complain about re-asking is when it is some kind of relationship question and the asker clearly ignored all the previous advice.

For ID questions, go nuts. Just don't get annoyed if people suggest the same answers as last time.
posted by smackfu at 7:00 AM on January 11, 2011




If this question is any indication, you should be fine to re-ask.

Yeah, as long as you don't act anything like the way the OP was acting in that thread.
posted by John Cohen at 7:08 AM on January 11, 2011


Considering the audience of AskMe has grown exponentially since you asked it the first time, there's no reason not to ask your ID question again.
posted by crunchland at 7:10 AM on January 11, 2011


Holy crap, John Cohen, I hadn't seen that thread. I see that it's been modded, so I'm assuming that the comments from the OP that remain are the ones that weren't hostile *enough* to be deleted? Yikes.
posted by tzikeh at 7:16 AM on January 11, 2011


With a flameout, no less!
posted by Admiral Haddock at 7:33 AM on January 11, 2011


Totally okay. Include a link to your previous question and any additional details if you have them. Also, please be prepared to have some answers along the line of "maybe you are misremembering something" and prepare to be gracious about them.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:34 AM on January 11, 2011


Me? Misremember something?? UNPOSSIBLE!!!!
posted by Grither at 7:36 AM on January 11, 2011


Exactly.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:38 AM on January 11, 2011 [1 favorite]


Also problematic in yesterday's question was the fact that it was basically a straight link to the old question with just a little bit of information. If you're going to try to catch the eyes of poeple who might legitimately recognize your book by reading a synopsis, you might want to include it in the new question as well.
posted by moviehawk at 7:50 AM on January 11, 2011


Low-down.

Down-low.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:09 AM on January 11, 2011 [5 favorites]


So ask already.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:19 AM on January 11, 2011


Cause if you don't ask, baby, you'll never know.
posted by boo_radley at 8:34 AM on January 11, 2011 [2 favorites]


Low-down.

Down-low.


Also, it's just common courtesy when using the former to augment it like this:

"What's the birds-eye lowdown on {x}?"
posted by steambadger at 9:20 AM on January 11, 2011


Metafilter is a doggie dog world.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 9:25 AM on January 11, 2011 [1 favorite]


True.
posted by Wolfdog at 9:27 AM on January 11, 2011 [1 favorite]


Woof.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:28 AM on January 11, 2011


Look, we're trying to keep the "low-down vs. down-low" low-down on the down-low.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:38 AM on January 11, 2011 [5 favorites]


France is bacon
posted by iotic at 10:10 AM on January 11, 2011 [1 favorite]


With a flameout, no less!

I'm sorry she left and hope she comes back. I understood why she was getting irked.

'Irked' is a word, right?
posted by A Terrible Llama at 10:32 AM on January 11, 2011


From what I've heard, she's been having a bad stretch of days and if people could maybe leave that particular recent re-ask alone, we'd all appreciate it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:43 AM on January 11, 2011


"Irked" is totally a word. I did notice someone use "urk" instead of "irk" the other day but did not think to make a note about where.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:45 AM on January 11, 2011


Visually, 'urk' doesn't look any worse than 'irk', which totally seems like someone was thinking of making a word but never got around to finishing up.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 10:59 AM on January 11, 2011


Oh man, glancing at the OED irk is in fact a very, very old word. Like 13th and 14th C. old, back into the dawn of English old, "we can guess about the etymology but honestly who the fuck knows" old. Was more "yrke" back than. Mentions "urke" as one of several middle-English variant forms but doesn't cite any details there.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:27 AM on January 11, 2011 [2 favorites]


I did notice someone use "urk" instead

Urk is obviously the grammatically correct word to use when you're being irked by Urkel.
posted by amyms at 12:21 PM on January 11, 2011 [1 favorite]


I love the OED...
posted by patheral at 2:27 PM on January 11, 2011


Urkel is indeed urksome.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:32 PM on January 11, 2011


Urk is a word with a well-established usage, as in, "Oh shit, the dog's urking, get him outside before he throws up on the carpet."
posted by Wolfdog at 2:57 PM on January 11, 2011 [4 favorites]


So, "urk" is an alternate spelling of "hork"?
posted by crush-onastick at 4:05 PM on January 11, 2011 [1 favorite]


I liked this explanation because it gives 'irk' the additional historical weight of 'work' 'annoy' and 'weary', which is pretty powerful for a three letter word that never looks right.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 4:24 PM on January 11, 2011


I am unburdened by facts in this matter, but I think "urk" and "hork" are onomatopoeic, so they aren't just spelling variants.
posted by gingerest at 5:25 PM on January 11, 2011


Being irked raises ire. I think.
posted by maryr at 7:29 PM on January 11, 2011


Urking typically precedes horking. While the animal is still urking, you might have a chance to get it outside, or slip a paper towel in front of it. Sometimes it's a false alarm and the urking never actually evolves into horking. By the time you hear horking, it's probably too late and that final cack is probably only moments away.
posted by ErWenn at 8:48 PM on January 11, 2011 [5 favorites]


« Older A MeFi shoutout, in print, in a real-life book!   |   Contact form to MeFi Mail Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments