I would just point out that the name of this domain is "chameleonforums.com"—not "repositoryforallknowledgeaboutchameleons.com" I infer that to mean its primary intent and purpose was/is to be a place for discussion and exchange of ideas, while including a modicum of reference information.
Sites like Cameleon Academy, Neptune the Chameleon, caskabove.com,
et al are primarily repositories, and (most) have no forums for discussion/exchange of ideas, questions, etc. (No sleight intended, but I just don't put "comments sections" on a par with forums.
)
IDT the intent is to send people away. I think it is to provide more comprehensive information—expressed better than the average bear—and to anticipate follow-ups with answers that can be found on the referenced article, site, or search.
I've been on forums where there are rules against posting the name, URL —or even mentioning the
existence of—"competing" or similar forums. So much for the free exchange of ideas.
IME here, people invariably come back with follow-ups or for clarification. I can't imagine anyone
not coming back; this is the place they got the referral to the answers they sought.
There's also nothing stopping anyone here of following & reviewing those links, quoting a passage, and adding their own observations/opinions on them to the discussion. I've seen it happen. I've done it, and it's been done with links I've provided, and I think led to some constructive—and sometimes entertaining—discussion.
One thing I've observed on this forum is (IMO) an unbelievable amount of redundancy of both questions & answers. I've seen instances of (nearly, if not) identical questions in the titles of 2, 3, or more threads on the same page. Yet referring anyone to the archives (hence keeping them on the site) is considered by some here to be "rude," followed by boilerplate answers that can be found multiple times in the archives, or on the other similar threads. (I've done that myself, because it seems to be the culture here—not that there's anything
wrong with that—just an observation.) I've seen—and been on—other forums (going back to Usenet) that consider asking questions whose answers can easily be found with a simple search as being a waste of peoples' time—and "rude". Times change. We adapt.
Without getting into levels of knowledge or experience, "answerers"
could write up boilerplate (paraphrased) responses as suggested, and copy/paste—or like many—just refer them to what they
know is good complete time-tested information expressed in a well thought out format, which FWIW, may be on another site.
Exactly.
