reviving old threads...

[chipdouglas]

Hey ppl....

i have wanted to write this for while but Morgan just reminded me...

why is it that when a new member asks info they are told to search, but when a new member revives an old thread, it shows they clearly searched, they get scolded for asking a relevant question in that revived thread.

be easy on me, this is the only forum i participate in and don't know forum etiquette completely yet.:yabbem:


michael

 

[HIMNL9]

Don't know for sure, it may depend from what is posted in the reviving post, maybe .....

Like ..... if an old thread is revived for post new info about it, or for place a question related to new problems that involve specifically that post, then i see nothing bad .....

If instead an old post is revived for just say "cool" or "sweet" or funny comments, or for post a new question that can be related to the same argument, but not directly with the OP thread, it can be considered "wrong" or at least not correct, in some forums .....

As the same example, just posting funny one-words posts in old threads, can unnerve peoples that have the old threads bumped on as "new ones / unreaded" with arguments that was already discussed and no more info are given ..... instead, for the "netiquette", followed in a lot of forums, is always considered preferable, if you have a question that was discussed in an old post without satisfying replies, to simply open another thread and mention / link the old one, so if someone don't remember it, can go and look .....

Like, as example, "i have this question about this problem, i have found that it was already discussed *here* and *here* (links), but i still need clarification / some different info / new problem / whatever ....."

So, the readers also know that is a new discussion involving an old problem ..... and still see that the OP made "homeworks" reading and searching, before ask

Then, about the different reactions, it's all matter of personal feelings ..... someone may just decide to ignore the reviving thread, someone may say "hey the post is old, look this new one", some others again may overreact and bash the resurrector, but about this it's all matter of different personal feelings, and i have no ways nor possibilities to explain this

 

[lasersbee]

Examples of what you are referring to would help in providing
specific answers... There is no global response...
It would depend on the circumstances...

For instance.... if someone posted a last post question or "what if"...
2 years ago and the Thread died and you respond to the last post...
that may be viewed as bad Forum etiquette...

But... If for instance an old dead Thread was about a subject that
became resurrected and interesting again... then that would work..
But a new Thread would be just as easy... linking back to that dead
thread as reference...

Those are just 2 examples...


Jerry...

 

[Benm]

I suppose one problem is that people sometimes do not realize how old posts are. The date is displayed, but not everyone looks at that.

So they come in via a google search or something like that, and chime in on a thread that hasn't been discussed for years.

A nice solution would be to make some sort of clearly visible warning, stating 'the last post in this thread is over a year old, are you sure you wish to comment on it?'.

I've seen this on other forums and it seems quite effective.

 

[lasersbee]

That makes sense.... don't know if vBulletin supports the feature..

Jerry

 

[chipdouglas]

thanks for the answers guys. part of it was my own confusion. and part of it was answered by jerry and himnl9. i can't remember exact threads but i know it was a quesation i've had for a while.

thank you
michael

 

[daguin]

I have always supported the closing of threads that have been inactive for a long time. People, technology, knowledge, circumstances, etc. change. The written word in a post does not.

With the old thread closed, it could still be read and linked to, but it would force the reader to "figure out" why he cannot just hit "reply" and share his insight. Hopefully that would prevent both the inane "me too" type posts as well as posts which refer to things that are now either irrelevant or even hurtful to dredge back up. It would also save members from reading through part or all of an old thread before they realized that it was no longer pertinent to the hobby.

This may also save some of our more sensitive members from having to "suffer" the indignity of being reminded that their post is either beating a dead horse, or resurrecting a subject that has been discussed to death, or one that will cause or sustain pain to a member.

The challenge is that it requires a person to make a judgment call on the relevance or value of a thread before they make the effort to close it. This is still a mostly self-moderated forum. Simon comes by to deal with some things and Avery is usually pretty responsive to an email, but they cannot cover it all. It is left to the experienced members here to "regulate" the forum.

Some people would rather have some "authority figure" give them instructions. Some people would rather give their control over to someone else rather than control themselves or deal with being told that what they do is not wonderful. Some would rather have "big brother" regulate their lives rather than work things out with their peers. Unfortunately for them, that is not how this forum is constructed.

Peace,
dave

 

[lasersbee]

Yeah.... I agree....

The automatic closing of a Thread after the subject matter has lost interest
on the Forum or needs to be put out of mind (only after a prescribed Delay)
makes some sense...

That way the Members would not need to remind other newer members
that the thread subject had long been abandoned if they missed the last
Post Date...
Opening a New Thread and linking back to a past old closed thread if
wanted seems to be ideal.

I suppose we could Report the old dug up Thread to be Closed if need
be... and it would save a lot of bickering...IMO...


Jerry

 

[drlava]

I'm against automatic closing of old threads. Often times new informatino can be added to these old threads that can be very helpful, but if it's closed, a new thread must be created. This process tends to dilute thread value away from searching and toward the here and now.

I'm not sure why someone would feel like scolding a member for posting in an older thread, except if the scolding member has a thread near the top that they feel is super important and want people to see it. But in that case, the new poster in the old thread apparently sees more value in the old thread, so it deserves to rise again. If a member is a thread necromancer and displays a behavior for posting silly stuff in old threads, they can be dealt with on a personal level.

Just don't automatically close old threads. please.

 

[pullbangdead]

It depends on what the necro is for.

If it's a noob saying "OMG me too-zors!", then that necro is clearly more likely to be annoying than useful. Flame away.

But if it's a legit question, truly looking for more information or adding some missing information, then it's not a big deal. Discuss away.

But it depends on the post and on the thread. Somehow could legitimately be trying to help, and just doing it wrong. For instance, "correcting" a really old thread about the first cheap violet diodes with "well actually, there are 12x diodes now". Of course the info is outdated, but that's why the original threads are no longer being discussed. An update is not necessary there, even if done out of the goodness of one's heart. Kindly remind the offending poster, and try to discourage this act in the future.

 

[chipdouglas]

my origional thread is off topic in a good way... i was meaning to ask this as well.... pbd reminded me... lets say this thread http://laserpointerforums.com/f42/diy-homemade-laser-diode-driver-26339.html does it really need 52 pages and over 1200 posts? shouldn't it be closed and stickied?

michael

 

[daguin]

I'm against automatic closing of old threads. Often times new informatino can be added to these old threads that can be very helpful, but if it's closed, a new thread must be created. This process tends to dilute thread value away from searching and toward the here and now.

I'm not sure why someone would feel like scolding a member for posting in an older thread, except if the scolding member has a thread near the top that they feel is super important and want people to see it. But in that case, the new poster in the old thread apparently sees more value in the old thread, so it deserves to rise again. If a member is a thread necromancer and displays a behavior for posting silly stuff in old threads, they can be dealt with on a personal level.

Just don't automatically close old threads. please.

I absolutely agree with being against the "automatic" closing of threads. Sometimes threads sit for some time between posts (especially some of the more "tutorial/informational" type threads). This is one of the major purposes of "stickys." However, some need to be closed and some should be closed. The decision about what needs to be closed must remain in the hands of a person, not a clock or a calendar.

One example (and I'm fairly sure the impetus behind this thread) is the recent resurrection of the thread about Kenom's "Types of Users" paper. Kenom wrote the paper as part of a class assignment over a year ago and posted it here for comments/suggestions. He turned in the paper and has subsequently had to leave school completely (hopefully temporarily). What possible value is there in someone commenting on how to improve his paper now? Not only is he NOT going to be working on it any more, but its resurrection serves to remind him that he had to leave school!

In opposition to this might be the 12X murder experiment thread. It sometimes sits for long periods without any input form IgorT. We often have to resort to posting "drivel" to keep it near the top and prevent it from being forgotten. This one should not be closed until the experiment is either completed or abandoned.

Close older threads? Yes. Close them automatically based on time? No.

my origional thread is off topic in a good way... i was meaning to ask this as well.... pbd reminded me... lets say this thread http://laserpointerforums.com/f42/diy-homemade-laser-diode-driver-26339.html does it really need 52 pages and over 1200 posts? shouldn't it be closed and stickied?

michael

The challenge here is that too many stickies causes problems as well. Usually a personal note to the admin is needed to get something stickied. It is not automatic either. Not all threads with large response numbers should become a sticky.

We still need the admin involved

Peace,
dave

 

[lasersbee]

Yeah... OK... I see your point against automatic Thread Closures... a human
should definitely be involved in the process...


Jerry

 

[Traveller]

your arguments are sound but not everyone takes the time to go through your logic before commenting:

Wow, look how old this thread is Its even got one of Frothy's posts in it...

This, in response to my "bumping" of a solid review D) of an important piece of gear that is still being sold...

I'm much more ready to accept the [rare] occasion when someone suggests I turn to the Search Engine then getting flamed for reviving old posts that still contain useful information for newcomers (or for those who simply missed it the first time around)... .

 

[Crazy Jay]

It's just the nature of message boards... take one at a time

 

[daguin]

your arguments are sound but not everyone takes the time to go through your logic before commenting:

Thus the need to "train" the NooB.

This, in response to my "bumping" of a solid review D) of an important piece of gear that is still being sold...

I'm much more ready to accept the [rare] occasion when someone suggests I turn to the Search Engine then getting flamed for reviving old posts that still contain useful information for newcomers (or for those who simply missed it the first time around)... .

The useful information is still there and accessible without the thread being "bumped." Unless you were adding info or correcting a mistake, why push the more current discussions down the list?

Peace,
dave