Question about the third act

It's very clear that the characters (and even the audience) aren't supposed to be aware of the fact that the party is taking place at Stu's old house until Sidney tells Sam about it over the phone, but my question is...how could absolutely no one realize this? I LOVE this movie, don't get me wrong, but this is something I can't make sense of.

One theory I had come up with was that the general public was never let in on the fact that Stu's house was where the murder spree came to an end, but that fell apart once I remembered that Amber knew about this after her parents bought the house.

Another theory I had was that perhaps the younger generation just didn't know about this unless they were Stab fanatics, but then that kind of fell apart because Mindy was a Stab fanatic and she too didn't seem to be aware of the fact that she was in Stu's old house, even as she was watching Stab 1.

I just had to accept that it was a writing inconsistency, but then I rewatched the movie and noticed that a lot of the characters didn't seem to be aware of Stu in general. In the opening scene, Tara thought there was only one killer, Billy Loomis. When Sam was telling Richie about the original murders, she mentioned Billy Loomis, but only referenced Stu as "his friend" as if he wasn't that important. Liv didn't even know who Stu was, and none of the teens even knew that Vince was Stu's nephew. So maybe my second theory is the correct one? And maybe Mindy wasn't a Stab fanatic, but only a fan of the first one, and this is backed up by her comment to Wes saying that "no one cares about the shitty, inferior sequels".

And honestly, as I'm writing this, maybe this is another one of the meta aspects of the film. We, the super-mega-nerdy fans of this series (the Amber's and Richie's) knew that the third act was gonna take place at the Macher house, but the casual audience (the kids at the party, Mindy, Chad, Sam, Tara) don't know this because, well, they're casuals or they just didn't care.

I dunno, I'm rambling trying to make some sense out of this. The directors could come out and say they didn't think that much about it and I'd believe it. What do you guys think of this? Is it a writing inconsistency? Am I missing something? Do you agree that it's just a "younger generation is stupid" thing?