PDA

View Full Version : What's the ruling on posting to an old thread?



Tucson_Tim
2007-Oct-20, 12:55 AM
Almost every time a new person posts to an old thread, several people, usually the long-time members, will note that "this is an old thread", implying that it's wrong to post to an old thread. Just because the long-time members posted to it and "let it go" doesn't mean that a new person can't possibly have something to contribute. Besides, maybe the new people want their chance to discuss it. What's wrong with that? And, unless I overlooked it, I don't see anything in the rules stating it shouldn't be done. And if it shouldn't, why doesn't the forum software just auto-lock threads that haven't been posted to in a while? I think it's better to post to an old thread than start a new thread about the very same subject.

Van Rijn
2007-Oct-20, 01:16 AM
Personally, I don't have a big problem with an occasional resurrection of an old thread if you have a relevant update and (this, to me, is very important) you point out that you are adding to an old thread at the top of your post. If you don't, you can expect that somebody else will point out that it is an old thread.

There have been a couple of cases where there was a poster that would resurrect one very old thread after another with pointless "me too" additions. That isn't fun. Also, recently, clicking on the "first unread" icon on an old thread often now takes you to the first post, even if you had read the thread before. That can be a bit of a pain for a long thread.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Oct-20, 01:20 AM
There have been a couple of cases where there was a poster that would resurrect one very old thread after another with pointless "me too" additions.

I agree with this 100%.

hhEb09'1
2007-Oct-20, 01:35 AM
Almost every time a new person posts to an old thread, several people, usually the long-time members, will note that "this is an old thread", implying that it's wrong to post to an old thread. Some people don't like it, I imagine, but I think usually the reason for pointing out that it is an old thread is to keep people from responding to a post as if it were made a couple days ago--sometimes people expect responses from posters that haven't even been on the board for two years, or they try to explain something that was resolved 18 months ago. It's very easy to miss the date/time, and pointing that out forestalls those sort of problems.

Van Rijn
2007-Oct-20, 02:56 AM
Some people don't like it, I imagine, but I think usually the reason for pointing out that it is an old thread is to keep people from responding to a post as if it were made a couple days ago--sometimes people expect responses from posters that haven't even been on the board for two years, or they try to explain something that was resolved 18 months ago. It's very easy to miss the date/time, and pointing that out forestalls those sort of problems.

And that's the reason I mentioned in my previous post, if somebody resurrects a thread, it's very important to point out at the beginning of the post that it's an old thread. And if they don't, they should expect that others will do it for them.

Serenitude
2007-Oct-20, 05:59 AM
We will use our NSA and Illuminati contacts, provided to us by our Disinformationist contracts with NASA, to have you "retired" ;)

hhEb09'1
2007-Oct-20, 06:04 AM
Just check out the Kubrick thread in Conspiracy Theories--five years ago, the thread discussed a moon hoax spoof article that was taken seriously. Today, the original author of the article shows up, and posts to the thread. Just imagine had we closed that thread... shudder

Moose
2007-Oct-20, 09:55 AM
It's generally more of an etiquette issue than anything else.

Resurrection is something that should generally be avoided (because it inevitably causes confusion, often in the form of replies to people who've long since moved on), but there's no rule against occasional resurrections, and it does have its place when used correctly.

Thing is: if the thread has been dormant for months (or years), then the discussion has already moved on. If you have something new and interesting to bring to the discussion, and its best framed as a reply, then a clearly-marked update to the existing thread is appropriate. If it has no real bearing on the thread, then a new thread is more appropriate. If the response is little more than "me too" or "ha ha", then the old thread should not be bumped at all.

But yeah, excessive necromancy is covered by the rules. Rule 14 was created and first applied specifically in response to a very long and very persistent string of necrophilia: an unnamed poster who'd been systematically raising hundreds of threads at a time with content-less bumps.

It meant that current discussion on nearly every forum was getting pushed down to page two or three, assuming one could find them at all. No amount of complaining seemed to get through, and the current rules couldn't deal with that specific case, so...

Others have since occasionally gone overboard with necromancy, but a quiet word has generally been enough to end the practice.

Michael Noonan
2007-Oct-20, 11:15 AM
I agree with you Moose on that if used correctly and with the courtesy of an explanation if possible it may be helpful. Especially since it shows the poster has taken the time to read an idea and show that it is important enough to them to comment on.

It may also be the depth of good quality posting in a family suitable forum. Also it may have been picked up on a search by a potentially high quality new member from an Internet search.

It may be harder to justify if it isn't for reasons like that.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-20, 11:54 AM
That's what I did when I first started here, and had no idea of posting etiquette. Once it was pointed out to me, I got the idea and stopped.

Serenitude
2007-Oct-20, 01:48 PM
You don't necessarily have to stop. Just make sure you have good reason ;)

Noclevername
2007-Oct-20, 02:03 PM
It always seems like a good reason to me.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Oct-20, 02:40 PM
It meant that current discussion on nearly every forum was getting pushed down to page two or three, assuming one could find them at all. No amount of complaining seemed to get through, and the current rules couldn't deal with that specific case, so...


OT but in the same vein, I created a new thread a few days ago right before a member started to post to (it seemed) every single active thread. Well, in minutes, my new thread was pushed to page 3. I was getting ready to bump my own thread when someone else responded. I know we all make silly comments but jeez, not to every single active thread.

hhEb09'1
2007-Oct-20, 03:10 PM
OT but in the same vein, I created a new thread a few days ago right before a member started to post to (it seemed) every single active thread. Well, in minutes, my new thread was pushed to page 3. I was getting ready to bump my own thread when someone else responded. I know we all make silly comments but jeez, not to every single active thread.Has to be an exaggeration, right, with the thirty second delay between posts? To get to page three, would be at least half an hour, right? I mean, if it were all done by a single poster.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Oct-20, 03:40 PM
Has to be an exaggeration, right, with the thirty second delay between posts? To get to page three, would be at least half an hour, right? I mean, if it were all done by a single poster.

OK. A "short time later". And of course there were other posters making normal posts at the same time.

Back on the subject . . .

To those who answered the OP, I understand all the reasons given. Thanks.