Uniform Format for Addressing Specific LSAT Questions Forum

[ConsideringLawSchool]

I am willing to bet that virtually every tough question has been discussed at some point on this forum. Rather than asking about questions that have already been addressed, it would be extremely helpful to be able to search through past posts. Currently, the lack of uniformity in subject lines makes it virtually impossible to check whether anyone has ever created a thread about a given question.

How would folks feel about creating a sticky introducing a single, uniform way to title question threads.

For example: PTxx/Sx/Qx (whatever other info you want, as long as it's separated by a space)

It really doesn't matter what format we use as long as it is entirely uniform. TLS could become a wonderful database of explanations for all the toughest questions rather quickly...

[citrustang]

This idea has been presented before (more than once?) and everyone commented on how it was such a great idea.

Then no one did it or tried to enforce it.

[earthlawyer]

This is a good idea!

Let's enforce it!

[ConsideringLawSchool]

Yes... do people have suggestions for format? And is there any way for a moderator to go back and add some sort of searchable content to posts regarding particular questions? I know it would take a bit of time, but it would save tons and tons of time of people rehashing already addressed questions...

[ConsideringLawSchool]

This is a good idea!

Let's enforce it!

no one seems too excited here...

[goodolgil]

What makes it worse is that searching by PT is almost impossible using the search tool. Put in "PT 57" and you'll be told your search is not specific enough. Put in "Preptest 57" and you'll get a bunch of results that just have the word preptest. The only recourse is to search for specific words from particularly troublesome/noteworthy logic games or RC passages.

[ConsideringLawSchool]

What makes it worse is that searching by PT is almost impossible using the search tool. Put in "PT 57" and you'll be told your search is not specific enough. Put in "Preptest 57" and you'll get a bunch of results that just have the word preptest. The only recourse is to search for specific words from particularly troublesome/noteworthy logic games or RC passages.

Yes, and that is difficult since many people use exclusively the symbols/letters for LGs

[earthlawyer]

Maybe everyone should start posting to the "past lsats explained" wiki. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Past_LSAT_Explained

If someone asks a question about a question, then someone who wants to answer can post to the wiki...?

I don't know.

But I agree, that the search function is lacking. I tried searching for answers before posting my own answer to someone's questions -but it's tedious and annoying. So I gave up.

[TheLuckyOne]

The search doesn't show numbers at all. It omits them saying that there are way too many entries.

This is a wonderful idea. Maybe someone who wants to participate in TLS Content Competition? The possibility of winning money may instigate someone to put time into it. Just some 15000 threads to sift through...

[Anonymous Loser]

What makes it worse is that searching by PT is almost impossible using the search tool. Put in "PT 57" and you'll be told your search is not specific enough. Put in "Preptest 57" and you'll get a bunch of results that just have the word preptest. The only recourse is to search for specific words from particularly troublesome/noteworthy logic games or RC passages.

Do this.

[TheLuckyOne]

What makes it worse is that searching by PT is almost impossible using the search tool. Put in "PT 57" and you'll be told your search is not specific enough. Put in "Preptest 57" and you'll get a bunch of results that just have the word preptest. The only recourse is to search for specific words from particularly troublesome/noteworthy logic games or RC passages.

Do this.

Crap! I was never thinking about it!

Interesting usename, btw.

[ConsideringLawSchool]

What makes it worse is that searching by PT is almost impossible using the search tool. Put in "PT 57" and you'll be told your search is not specific enough. Put in "Preptest 57" and you'll get a bunch of results that just have the word preptest. The only recourse is to search for specific words from particularly troublesome/noteworthy logic games or RC passages.

Do this.

Great idea

[Hey-O]

I like the idea of linking to the past LSAT explained section. That way everyone would have access to the reasoning and it would be easier than searching for it on this forum and easier than having a million different threads.

[earthlawyer]

I like the idea of linking to the past LSAT explained section. That way everyone would have access to the reasoning and it would be easier than searching for it on this forum and easier than having a million different threads.

+ five million.



I REALLY second this. There just should be a separate section for LSAT questions only. The other strategies, prep, etc, are all very helpful but the thing that helped me the most on TLS was reading question explanations and answering other people's questions.

[theZeigs]

Maybe everyone should start posting to the "past lsats explained" wiki. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Past_LSAT_Explained

If someone asks a question about a question, then someone who wants to answer can post to the wiki...?

I don't know.

But I agree, that the search function is lacking. I tried searching for answers before posting my own answer to someone's questions -but it's tedious and annoying. So I gave up.

What makes it worse is that searching by PT is almost impossible using the search tool. Put in "PT 57" and you'll be told your search is not specific enough. Put in "Preptest 57" and you'll get a bunch of results that just have the word preptest. The only recourse is to search for specific words from particularly troublesome/noteworthy logic games or RC passages.

Do this.

The search doesn't show numbers at all. It omits them saying that there are way too many entries.

This is a wonderful idea. Maybe someone who wants to participate in TLS Content Competition? The possibility of winning money may instigate someone to put time into it. Just some 15000 threads to sift through...

I thought I would rescue this thread from the dead.

I think that the wikibooks thing would be extraordinarily helpful. Granted, it would take some organization for things that are already done, but maybe it could be "common courtesy" on the threads that when you ask a question, the question and all responses are copy-pasted to the wikibooks. Or even when you happen to look something up yourself, copy and paste it into wikibooks. That google search strat is totally lagat btw.

Also, it would become clear when entire preptests were already answered if the wikibooks was updated, and thus, people would have an answer key to full PTs. How amazing would that be?