Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dragging up a nine year old thread

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Boston wrote: »
    That's the second time you've brought up me pouncing on people. Is there some point you'd like to make or is it that you feel the need to add me to the ever growing circle of people who take a dig at you when ever you post on a topic?
    Wo... Wasn't trying to offend you - it's just something I've observed.


  • Options
    #33
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,497 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    because its retarded, nobody should drag up old threads


  • Options
    #34
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Dudess wrote: »
    Seamus, what about considering the actual thread though? Obviously the thread in question here was an exceptionally inane one and deserves closure/deletion, but what about, for example, a decent thread - one which might even have very useful information? For example, one about those scam marketing/sales companies in Work & Jobs?
    To me, it would make more sense to resurrect one of those (even if it's two years old) rather than start a new one when there could be some very valuable comments in the old one.
    Such posts are rare enough though and ones with such value are usually stickied or linked from a sticky to keep them alive.

    You can have major discussions dragged up after a while, and the dragging up is effectively useless. Imagine someone dragging up one of the humongous abortion threads on Humanities and expecting everyone to just jump back into the debate. You'd have to go read the whole thing again, even if half of the original posts were yours.

    So a new thread would better serve the discussion.


  • Options
    #35
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    Then why not delete everything older than XX months if they are ALL irrelevant.


  • Options
    #36
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Because they serve as an historical reference. A bit like looking at papers from twenty years ago. The usefulness of a two-year-old thread seems non-existent, but when the thread becomes a five, ten or twenty year old thread, then its value as a reference increases.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Daithi McGee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 671 ✭✭✭Daithi McGee


    Ludo wrote: »
    Then why not delete everything older than XX months if they are ALL irrelevant.

    No point since the data.sioc-project loaded the whole of boards onto the internet! Bubbles is probably busy working away as we speak!

    :eek:


  • Options
    #38
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    So what is the cut-off point for an old thread? Reviving an old thread will result in a ban at what age exactly?

    Is a year old? Is it 6 months?

    Sometimes someone starts a new thread and is answered with "Use the search button". What if they have and have an additional question in a technical forum. Should they start a new thread or revive the old one?

    If they are valuable enough to hold onto then replying and adding to them should also be acceptable. Banning for it is an over-reaction.


  • Options
    #39
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    it
    was
    a
    nine
    year
    old
    thread.

    end
    of
    discussion
    .


  • Options
    #40
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,497 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Ludo wrote: »

    Sometimes someone starts a new thread and is answered with "Use the search button". What if they have and have an additional question in a technical forum. Should they start a new thread or revive the old one?

    If they are valuable enough to hold onto then replying and adding to them should also be acceptable. Banning for it is an over-reaction.

    use search for the answer nut no need to reply, its not an overreaction, its how things are if people keep doing it after there told not to,


  • Options
    #41
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,994 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Ludo wrote: »
    Sometimes someone starts a new thread and is answered with "Use the search button". What if they have and have an additional question in a technical forum. Should they start a new thread or revive the old one?

    Fine to start a new thread if they have a question that hasn't been answered before. Most of the time the "use the search function" comment is made when a question is being asked ad nauseum. Half the time when I've seen it used, the question was answered in a thread on the first page of the forum!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    R0ot
    Registered Users Posts: 4,473 ✭✭✭R0ot


    Necromancy is the art of the Devil and the mods don't like Devil arts! :D


  • Options
    #43
    tallaght01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    |-*SxyDubGrrl93*-| wrote: »
    it
    was
    a
    nine
    year
    old
    thread.

    end
    of
    discussion
    .

    So how will AH benefit from banning the user?


  • Options
    #44
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Ludo wrote: »
    So what is the cut-off point for an old thread? Reviving an old thread will result in a ban at what age exactly?
    Depends on the inanity of the thread and the pointlessness of the new post.
    Sometimes someone starts a new thread and is answered with "Use the search button". What if they have and have an additional question in a technical forum. Should they start a new thread or revive the old one?
    I would generally say to start a new thread asking the question that you haven't yet gotten the answer for.

    People are usually only told to use search when the same question has been asked over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over like, "Am I insured if I drive on the motorway with a provisional licence?".
    If they are valuable enough to hold onto then replying and adding to them should also be acceptable.
    So if I write a letter to the editor of the Irish Times based on a article written in 1956 about the price of oil, they should print it? After all, we hold onto copies of newspapers. Why?
    It's held onto for historical purposes, not necessarily because it currently serves any particular useful purpose.
    When a discussion is over, a discussion is over. Imagine going to the pub with your mates and saying, "Hey John, remember that conversation we had in 2002 about the world trade centre attacks?". "eh, no". "Well, here's why you were wrong..."


  • Options
    #45
    Kazuma
    Registered Users Posts: 558 ✭✭✭Kazuma


    Cabaal wrote: »
    use search for the answer nut no need to reply, its not an overreaction, its how things are if people keep doing it after there told not to,
    No one told me not to.


  • Options
    #46
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    tallaght01 wrote: »
    So how will AH benefit from banning the user?

    How will after hours benefits from not banning the user?


  • Options
    #47
    Hitchhiker's Guide to...
    Registered Users Posts: 3,322 ✭✭✭Hitchhiker's Guide to...


    here's an example of a three year-old thread that was recently dragged up on the Consumer Issues forum:

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054850923

    obviously there was no point as the information in the thread was clearly out of date as companies and their policies and prices change over time

    / warning: its a boring thread and not worth reading


  • Options
    #48
    Kazuma
    Registered Users Posts: 558 ✭✭✭Kazuma


    Boston wrote: »
    How will after hours benefits from not banning the user?
    That's a fairly absurd stance to take, sounds about one step away from banning everyone who doesn't post exactly what you want.


  • Options
    #49
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    tallaght01 wrote: »
    So how will AH benefit from banning the user?

    the user and others will learn not to drag up 9 year old threads.
    simple enough.


  • Options
    #50
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,994 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Judging from the state of After Hours at the moment, it could only get better by banning everyone.


  • Options
    #51
    tallaght01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    |-*SxyDubGrrl93*-| wrote: »
    the user and others will learn not to drag up 9 year old threads.
    simple enough.

    Why can't you give them the benefit of the doubt and just ask them not to do it again (if it bothers you that much)?

    Discussion as equals is a strategy that I use with both adults and children, and it works reasonably well.

    You should give it a shot.

    The power to ban someone should really be used sparingly.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Kazuma wrote: »
    That's a fairly absurd stance to take, sounds about one step away from banning everyone who doesn't post exactly what you want.

    There's an idea.


  • Options
    #53
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    tallaght01 wrote: »
    Why can't you give them the benefit of the doubt and just ask them not to do it again (if it bothers you that much)?

    Discussion as equals is a strategy that I use with both adults and children, and it works reasonably well.

    You should give it a shot.

    The power to ban someone should really be used sparingly.
    I agree. A warning/infraction and the thread being deleted seems appropriate, not a week-long banning - particularly when it's a poster who doesn't have a history of being a troublemaker.


  • Options
    #54
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Dudess wrote: »
    :confused: Why not?

    Why do you consider the "established order" so sacred and why are you constantly defending it by pouncing on people who question things here in a civil, reasonable manner?

    If it ain't broke why fix it ?


  • Options
    #55
    tallaght01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    If it ain't broke why fix it ?

    Well, my apartment isn't "broke", and I really like it. But, sometimes I look at things that aren't perfect, and I make alterations.


  • Options
    #56
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    LOL at dragged up thread in AH now. Plus, it's in the wrong forum.


  • Options
    #57
    Kazuma
    Registered Users Posts: 558 ✭✭✭Kazuma


    Dudess wrote: »
    LOL at dragged up thread in AH now. Plus, it's in the wrong forum.
    Ah, well I'd love to see it, but unfortunately can't :p


  • Options
    #58
    Kazuma
    Registered Users Posts: 558 ✭✭✭Kazuma


    Kazuma wrote: »
    Ah, well I'd love to see it, but unfortunately can't :p
    Hah, friend checked it for me...amusing =P


  • Options
    #59
    tallaght01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    That is one quality piece of detective work


  • Options
    #60
    Kazuma
    Registered Users Posts: 558 ✭✭✭Kazuma


    tallaght01 wrote: »
    That is one quality piece of detective work
    No unban for me? =P
    Must give manties my love, lol.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Kinetic^
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,249 ✭✭✭✭Kinetic^


    Boston wrote: »
    How will after hours benefits from not banning the user?

    How will after hours benefit from not not banning the user?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement