Reviving Old Topics

[bill_mchale]

You know, I have noticed a recent trend on here recently that has me rather befuddled. I understand that it is natural for us to revisit topics from time to time, and to a certain extent it might be helpful when revisit them to somehow link them to existing threads on the same subject. It might even useful to make the new posts part of an existing thred. But some of what has been going on has frankly got me puzzled. In many cases these threads are getting revived by someone directly responding to a post that was made in some cases 2 or 3 years ago. No offence but if a thread has not been posted too in over a year, do we really need to add a new comment to it now?

 

Maybe its just me, but seeing all these threads crop up... and appear like they are very busy... it just can be a little confusing.

 

--

Bill

[Ken_Coles]

...And I'm sure if you check back in 6 or 12 months others will post their opinions about it in this thread!

[Cream-T]

Bill, in many cases I think it is much better to revive old threads than starting a new discussion on a topic that has been exhaustingly explored in the past. I would go so far as to say that the ability todo so one of the most important features of a message board / forum.

 

Firstly, it shows that the new poster has "done his/her homework" and searched C.Net for answers to the problem. It's can be pretty annoying for the regulars to read for the upteenth time "What's better, English or Anglo?" If, after reading the already available information, someone still feels the need to have something clarified in more details or that they have something interesting to add to a topic, why not add it to the end of a thread?

 

Secondly, it saves the same frequent C.Netters from answering the same question over and over again, or having to say "see topics #3987492, #59082734 and #23498723 from the last seven years". A forum is itself a collection of "FAQ" and the pretty decent search function in Invisionboard should give noone the excuse "I couldn't find any previous threads to this topic" when it has been discussed several times over.

 

There are of course exceptions to this, and a gratuitous "me, too" at the end of an ancient thread isn't helpful, especially when the thread in question was one of the more emotional ones that had been mercifully buried under the rubble. But if there are such threads, perhaps we should agree that those topics get closed (a moderator job), then nobody can "warm them up", although they will remain readable.

 

 

Well, that's my tuppence worth of opinion. Squeeze on!

[JimLucas]

Maybe its just me, but seeing all these threads crop up... and appear like they are very busy... it just can be a little confusing.

Here is a very old post, which is a comment on old posts before there were many, by Paul, our moderator.

 

I agree that reviving old topics can be useful... or useless, depending on what is revived, and how, and why. But if a post -- new or old -- is pointless, then I think it's even more pointless to respond to it by saying so, since that just continues it.

[JimLucas]

here in ireland, we have a number of old posts that soon will be valuable .theyare old wooden ones,in imperial rather than metric , signposts ,memoribiliafrom the age of the ass.

Judging by current world politics, I suspect I'll be long gone before that age is ended.

[Paul Read]

There are of course exceptions to this, and a gratuitous "me, too" at the end of an ancient thread isn't helpful, especially when the thread in question was one of the more emotional ones that had been mercifully buried under the rubble. But if there are such threads, perhaps we should agree that those topics get closed (a moderator job), then nobody can "warm them up", although they will remain readable.

 

 

Well, that's my tuppence worth of opinion. Squeeze on!

 

I think that this was a bit of an odd period where we've had new members who are not new to the concertina (old hands even). They've gone through the list and had a couple of things they wanted to add to old threads. The topics were new to them, anyway.

[geoffwright]

Aren't newbies allowed to comment on old threads if they have something constructive to add?

[bill_mchale]

Aren't newbies allowed to comment on old threads if they have something constructive to add?

 

As far as I know, we have no hard and fast rules about who can add to what threads. Its just that the recent trend where it seems half of the active threads are simply the result of someone reviving really old threads and adding a little comment onto it. I am not a moderator, so I have no authority, I am just making an observation that it is getting a little disorienting. I see a thread, open it up start reading it and think that it all sounds familiar then after a minute or two I realize I am reading posts that were made 6 months, a year or 2 years ago. Shoot there have been a couple of times I have gotten ready to post a reply to what someone has written only to realize that I already had replied... or that they haven't posted here in about 6 months and therefore are unlikely to ever read my reply.

 

Just an example... one of the recently revived threads was the one regarding Colin Dipper. Now I did post to it when it was revived. But really, did we really need revive the thread so that we could all say nice things in defense of Colin? To my mind at least that had been done perfectly well the first time the thread had shown up.

 

--

Bill