Your meta question is biased and erroneous on several fronts.
1) I'll start with this comment:
Another user suggested that the OP has searched for "told+said" and found nothing.
I never suggested that the O.P. searched for "told+said". I asked you a simple question, "How can you tell no search was done?" In that question, I provided an example query to demonstrate that it very possible for an O.P. to conduct a related search that fails to find a particular answer. However, these comments do not "suggest" that the O.P. made that search, or any other. Instead, I was merely illustrating how it would be difficult to prove an allegation you had made earlier in the conversation, which I found a tad presumptuous. Here is a quote (even though your comment has since been removed):
Also, asking a Q without prior searching is called "no search effort".
2) As for this comment:
I have checked it by myself and found that searching by infinitive ("tell+say") returns the relevant question as the first result.
this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The fact that a particular search could find a relevant answer does not prove that a user hasn't attempted to find an answer. Moreover, you speak as though your search "proves" something, as if somehow I was claiming that your answer could not be found:
You told me it isn't searchable, I proved it works.
Fact is, I tested a similar search before I posted my comment, so I already knew your answer was findable (although in my search it was #4 out of 10 results).
It looks to me like your reasoning goes as follows:
a) An answer to an earlier question already answers the O.P.'s question.
b) Had the O.P. seen that answer, there would be no need to ask this question.
c) Since the O.P. has asked the question, then the O.P. has not seen that answer.
d) Since the O.P. has not seen that answer, the O.P. must not have searched for an answer before asking.
3) As for this comment:
The discussion then turned to the point that ELL users are, supposedly, that much incompetent so that they are unable to do any search by themselves. And, because of that, ELL should have special requirements regarding searching prior asking a question.
This seems like your personal interpretation of the conversation, although I would not draw the same conclusion. I don't think anyone was arguing that ELL users are "incompetent" nor are they "unable to do any search by themselves."
4) You never did address one of my key points in the debate: namely, that the answer in this case is conveniently something you composed yesterday. As such, it would be ridiculously easy for you to find that answer with a query, yet other users might have a harder time finding your text. Instead of acknowledging that obvious point, you've used it to jump to another hasty conclusion:
it requires some thinking to use infinitive instead of past tense, but do we need questions asked with no prior thinking? [emphasis in the original]
Unless I'm misinterpreting that remark, it seems to imply that, because one user did not find an answer you knew existed, not only did that user not do any research, but that user also did not even exercise any careful thought prior to asking.
5) As for this comment:
Voting up = same rules as everywhere; Voting down = special rules for non-searchers.
There are several reasons I might vote your meta question down. After all, it's rife with logical errors and hasty conclusions. However, I don't believe there should be special rules for non-searchers.
Lastly, there is a certain element of hypocrisy in your overall argument that bothers me quite a bit. You mentioned that:
now I'm convinced that, indeed, no search was done. [emphasis in the original]
Yet the evidence you cite to support that conclusion is a search that finds an answer. In other words: asking a question when an answer to that question is already available is supposedly proof that no research was done. You have also made this comment:
Questions must be for real problems. If I want to ask, I search. If I find an answer, there's no longer a problem.
However, you have asked 12 questions on this site! Therefore, if anyone here can do an internet search and find an answer to one of your questions on the first page of results, then, by your logic, your question should be closed as well.
So, let's start with this one:
“The bass drop is so sick!…” - how to understand it?
Being a fan of a dubstep music, I often see comments like this:
- "Looooove this tune! The bass drop is so sick!..."
To my understanding, sick has negative connotation. Merriam-Webster defines this word as "affected with a disease or disorder", either physically or mentally.
However, the phrase above looks rather positive (even if followed with something like "...my ears were bleeding").
What's the point?
Using the logic you've applied in your earlier conversation, I could point to this link, or this link (Meaning 12), and conclude that you obviously haven't followed your own advice, that your question should be closed, and that someone should chide you with a comment saying:
Also, asking a Q without prior searching is called "no search effort".
or:
M-W? Try a better dictionary.
It looks to me like, when you can't find an answer, it's still a valid question, but, when someone else can't find your answer, then that's "no search effort."
Does anyone else in the community see a double-standard here?
