[BillA]

to restate:
why do (presumably) technical sites ignore the content of other such sites ?

pHaestus commented on this re his flow optimization article
I see it all the time with my stuff
and some other really good stuff gets hidden away in places like amdmb.com and hardwareanalysis.com

now I can understand about egomania and being a big-fish-in-a-small-pond
and I accept that there may not be universal support for 'my' definition of 'good'
additionally different sites have different interests
but this head-in-the sand NIH attitude is materially retarding 'our' progress

every so often I get an e-mail referring me to an article on a site I've never heard of and its a goddamned jackpot
but all too often these articles remain hidden 'till 2 years later someone says 'oh yeah, so-and-so did that ages ago'

popular selection does NOT work, look at the proliferation of stickys filled with shit links and stupid info by people that don't have a clue

and this site represents another dimension of the same problem
-> the person that designed the search function should be forced to (try to) use it
tits on a boar, and then some
there is some (but by NO means all) really good info in some threads, but as time passes it becomes totally un-recoverable

JoeK
I know you love my suggestions - but here is a serious one:
to increase the utility of your site -> put together an internal reference system
and do the same for external identified 'sources' (very subject specific, NOT general)

this is not a task for an enthusiast as vetting each reference is required; calling for both a breadth and depth of knowledge by the reviewer
- perhaps even culling extraneous protions of threads ? (is 'editing' more polite ?)

got to be a better way . . . .