Is it just me, or does it bother you too when a 4, 5, 6, 7 year old thread gets revived on the forum?
Typically, there has been no action on the thread since 2007 or 2006 or 2005 or earlier. Then, all of a sudden it reappears, usually with some inane comment by the poster. And, it often seems to be done by a new forum member, not a more seasoned forum member.
These old threads can be 3 or 4 pages long. Wouldn’t it make more sense to simply start a new thread? You could always include a link to the old thread if you think that would be helpful.
It seems to me that once a thread has not had any activity for at least a year, the thread should be automatically locked by the forum administrator. It could still be viewed or referenced with a link but not revived.
…it would make some sense to just restart an old thread topic but guess what?
Somebody will b***h and kvetch about yet another thread on a tired old topic…and they will suggest adding to an already used thread…
I just deal with the topic as is…recently I noticed a couple of older threads were brought up…but guess what? They were not on your usual topics either…
Rich, I see your point. The other side of the discussion is that at times someone will post a new thread and in the course time, the person will be advised that the topic has been discussed before and to search for the answer in the old threads. If the old posts get deleted they may not be included in such a search. IMHO, I have found these searches to be frustrating so it’s easier to create a new post than do a search.
Somebody will wonder why a new thread was started on a “tired old subject”.
But for the OP, somebody will wonder why “that tired old thread was brought up” just as well.
I try, before I make a bafoon of myself, to look at the starting date of a thread when I first starting to read it. Then I look at how recently the new post/ posts have been and what the contents are. THEN I decide if I will post a response or not if it is “relevant”.
For example a thread about “doing business with XYZ Co.” came up in 2005 and someone NOW wants to know why they can’t find the website anymore and someone else knows XYZ closed down in 2010 and posts that, I find that “relevant”.
Since many here are crumudgeons about repeating topics that the OP has NOT done a “search our community” on FIRST, I would suspect many would be happy to see that the OP did, in fact, do a search to find the old thread first!!! [:-^]
No it usually doesn’t really bother me an old thread is revived. Definately not as much as an “answer” or response that is totally useless to the subject such as “no, I have not tried product XYZ, but …” or worse yet the " I won’t answer you. Do some research first" type answer. Like they are the ordained master instructors of the world. On the flip side, it doesn’t bother me if some one starts a new thread on How Do I Post A Picture. A thread is a thread whether it be new or old. I agree with research, but then again maybe they didn’t get a clear answer or, just wanted to see if the feelings have changed. Or like you said, usually have to sift through so much stuff it’s easier to just start a new one. Of course you have to put up with the whining from those who feel they need to post to every thread because it’s their job, or at least read the whole thing wasting precious time. Luckily most just post an answer as if it were new and a few may post a link to a relevent thread.
If their time is so precious they can’t even spare the time to skip a thread…maaaaaybeeee…[:-^] I never understood what is so upsetting about whether a posting has been discussed before. Like it’s a crime to ask the same question twice. Can’t be space on the first page, if they bring an old one forward it adds to it the same as if they create a new one. If it is a question someone is tired of answering or seeing, why even bother to open and read. Do they feel the same “need” to post to an old thread they do a new one? Ther’s a good topic for the future. But I won’t be the one[(-D]. I’m sure there are plenty of threads that they have never bothered to open as they have no interest in the topic. Why not just quietly pass that one over too. I have my opinions as to why but, alas, they are just that. Opinions.
But I don’t understand why one gets revived, (but doesn’t really bother me) with a dupe answers. 2 pages
I like the idea of locking them, too. Another option would be for the hosts to create a pop-up warning when a poster attempts to reply to a thread that is over a certain age. The warning might read something like this:
Note that you are replying to a thread that has seen no participation in over 90 days. Your reply will bring the thread to the front page. Please consider interacting with thread participants via private message rather than bringing the thread to the surface.
It doesn’t absolutely prevent such threads from being brought up, but it warns inexperienced folks that there may be unintended results and informs them that there is an alternative means of conversing with thread participants.
I have referred new posters to old threads, especially when they were looking for a, “How to,” on a subject not easily covered in three sentences. My instructions on how to hand-lay turnouts were a, “Type once - then refer,” to a 2007 thread. So I’m lazy - or maybe I don’t see a need to repeat myself.
As for an automatic lock - I have added a new post to a year-old thread when there was new information to add. If I had simply started a new thread, the new info wouldn’t have been tied back to the earlier story. (Accident investigations can take months, or years, to reach a conclusion.)
I am fairely new to model train forums. I went through a period of when I was caught up on current I would read old threads. Many were not time revalant and were just as interesting as if they were new. Occasionally if I thought I had something I wanted to add I would bring it forward. These were usually general discussion about model railroading type threads not questions type.
I’ve seen quite a few times where a new member would come on and ask a question and be steered to an old thread pertaining to the subject. Upon reading the thread they still have questions so they ask them on that thread or start a new thread asking these new questions. One of three things usually happen. #1-Somebody will answer the question(s) as best they can, #2- Somebody will jump on them for starting a new thread when there are old threads pertaining to the subject or #3-Somebody will jump on them for reviving an old thread when they could have started a new one and gotten jumped on by somebody else. It’s no wonder there are so many new members who don’t bother posting again. To them it seems that no matter what they do they get jumped on and the best course of action is to not post in the first place. These forums are not here for attacking people for asking questions, no matter how simple those questions may be. When I ask a question I expect a polite and knowledgeable answer pertaining to what I asked about, not some smart remark, insult or demand that I look it up elsewhere. I’ve already searched and found the answers already given to be unsatisfactory.
And when we did that old thread, I probably stated in it that I don’t think locking threads is a good idea, that adding new info to an existing thread is actually pretty useful (since you don’t need to repeat all the knowledge in the previous thread in the new thread), that it would be courteous if the reviving poster notes that ‘I am re-activating this old thread’ or similar language, so readers can readily see the break in continuity, and that it would be cool if the forum software could identify re-ativated threads in some way (highlight the posts that occurred after, say 6 month gaps from the previous one), but probably not gonna happen.
On another message board I frequent (Straight Dope, if you must know), there seem to be 3 categories of thread re-activations - to add new, useful or interesting info to the thread (most common), to add a personal observation or follow-up (common enough), and seemingly just lame old thread bumps (not that common, but rather annoying). How relevant the added info is controls the timing of the inevitable Zombie Thread snarky reply post - very relvenant and useful additions, no Zombie snark post (or very long time before one is posted); not all that relevant or useful. a few post later come the Zombie jokes (“You gotta watch out for Zombie nurses”, “Zombies do lously on-line research also”, “Yeah, that music genre was quite a hit with the Zombies” - jokes keyed to thread topic); and stupid revivals of threads get immediate Zombie joke posts (“Wow! Zombies are spamming for Acai berry juice”). The SMDB has cornered the market on Zombies, we’d have to come up with a different joke context.
Admit it , seeing an old thread appear, saying ‘Hey, I know what info I can add to this’, and then while reading the thread prior to posting you find that YOU
This is going around in circles with widely polarized views. I think it best to lock the thread at this point.
The Front Page was doubled in capacity a couple of months ago in response to requests from users. They had been complaining that there were few open threads on the front page and that the Koffee Klatch and Diner threads were taking up a chunk of the ‘headlines’, along with other threads that lingered there about which they were no longer interested. So, the staff agreed to make the list many times longer. Surely we can simply read the initiation date of threads appearing in the lead page and move past them if they are obviously dated? Meanwhile, let those who are curious, good-willed, and/or invigilant open them as they see fit.
