Old Thread Bumping - countermeasure??

Savman

Seeing as newbies and ignoramas dont bother checking the date of a 2 or 3yo thread before hitting 'Reply', perhaps it's an idea to have some kind of pop-up warning to say something like:
"You are about to reply to a thread that is XX days old. Are you sure you wish to proceed?"

Or something to that effect. It would help stop the bumping of non-relevant threads?

stovelid

Seems like a pointless use of developer resources. Don't see why people get worked up about zombie or repeated threads. If nobody answers, it will disappear; if it gets a good response, let it stay.

Long-term boardsies don't own the place. Maybe people want to discuss it again, even if it is boring to some.

oscarBravo

I think there's a vbulletin plugin to do that. Could be wrong.

oscarBravo

stovelid wrote: »

Long-term boardsies don't own the place. Maybe people want to discuss it again, even if it is boring to some.

If it's worth discussing again, it's probably worth a new thread.

biko

A lot of nooby posters in old threads get them through google, as a google result to a search.
They don't bother looking at the date before replying which can be annoying if thread is utterly irrelevant nowadays.
However, the forum mod can just lock, no biggie.

tbh

oscarBravo wrote: »

If it's worth discussing again, it's probably worth a new thread.

you're caught between two evils there - well, not really evils - do I necro this thread, or risk getting told off for not posting in the existing thread?

never really saw the problem with dragging up old threads myself tbh, except maybe in PI.

oscarBravo

Resurrecting a thread can be fine if it's an old issue that has resurfaced: sort of a "latest developments" bump.

Dragging up an old thread just because it's on a similar topic can be annoying. I'd never give out to someone for duplicating a thread that's years old.

Savman

Hardly advance physics is it?? Just a simple note so that the poster is aware they are bumping an old thread. If it still has relevance after 2yrs on or some update on the original thread then great, but we all know most of the time it's a newbie who just searched and landed on an obscure topic.

I would've thought it makes a Mods job slightly easier if anything.

Savman

tbh wrote: »

you're caught between two evils there - well, not really evils - do I necro this thread, or risk getting told off for not posting in the existing thread?.

That's true actually.

Red Sleeping Beauty

stovelid wrote: »

Seems like a pointless use of developer resources. Don't see why people get worked up about zombie or repeated threads. If nobody answers, it will disappear; if it gets a good response, let it stay.

Long-term boardsies don't own the place. Maybe people want to discuss it again, even if it is boring to some.

I've never understood why people (who winge about "grave digging" zombie threads ) can't just leave it.
If there's an old thread (ie, older than a week) and someone either just bumps it or adds another post and you don't like it... why do people have to whinge about it ? Look at the first post date and if you want to read it and post in it then read it and post in it.

Like you say, if it's a crap thread and no one's interested then the thread falls off the first page and that's that.

Indeed, anyone with an account over a year old doesn't own the place

oscarBravo

Alan Rouge wrote: »

I've never understood why people (who winge about "grave digging" zombie threads ) can't just leave it.

The problems start when people read the newly-resurrected thread, fail to notice the post dates, and restart old arguments by quoting people who haven't posted on the topic in years.

Indeed, anyone with an account over a year old doesn't own the place

I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic.

Red Sleeping Beauty

oscarBravo wrote: »

The problems start when people read the newly-resurrected thread, fail to notice the post dates, and restart old arguments by quoting people who haven't posted on the topic in years. I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic.

Who would they be arguing with if the people aren't still posting ?
I thought forums where for discussing and talking about stuff, not arguing.

faceman

I dont have an issue with thread resurrection as long as the zombie post is still contributing, on topic and relevent.

Mistakes will be made anyway and its no different that someone starting a new thread on a topic in a forum while there are still active threads in the forum already going!

I dont see a need to stop raising zombie threads because of the mistakes a handful of users.

oscarBravo

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Who would they be arguing with if the people aren't still posting ?

Who said they're not still posting?

I thought forums where for discussing and talking about stuff, not arguing.

You're new around here, aren't you?

oscarBravo

faceman wrote: »

I dont have an issue with thread resurrection as long as the zombie post is still contributing, on topic and relevent.

Mistakes will be made anyway and its no different that someone starting a new thread on a topic in a forum while there are still active threads in the forum already going!

I dont see a need to stop raising zombie threads because of the mistakes a handful of users.

I think a point is being missed.

Sometimes, zombie threads are accidentally resurrected because they were discovered through Google or whatever, and the new poster doesn't check the age of the thread.

What's suggested isn't the prevention of resurrection, merely a mechanism for making sure people are aware that they're resurrecting. Considering the number of "oops, hadn't seen the thread date - please lock" messages I've seen, I don't think it's a bad idea.

Savman

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's suggested isn't the prevention of resurrection, merely a mechanism for making sure people are aware that they're resurrecting.

Exactly, nothing more tbh. I'm all for raising the dead if it needs be done but from what I've seen it's very often done in error, usually replying to a specific request or "position wanted" type thread which turns out to be donkeys years old.

Red Sleeping Beauty

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who said they're not still posting?

We're talking semantics here tbh.

You said...

oscarBravo wrote: »

The problems start when people read the newly-resurrected thread, fail to notice the post dates, and restart old arguments by quoting people who haven't posted on the topic in years. I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic.

What happened to "attack the post, not the poster"
What's wrong with quoting people who've not posted on the topic in years ? It's the posts that are supposed to be discussed, debated or "argued" over, not the poster.

oscarBravo wrote:

You're new around here, aren't you?

The irony is delicious

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think a point is being missed.

Sometimes, zombie threads are accidentally resurrected because they were discovered through Google or whatever, and the new poster doesn't check the age of the thread.

What's suggested isn't the prevention of resurrection, merely a mechanism for making sure people are aware that they're resurrecting. Considering the number of "oops, hadn't seen the thread date - please lock" messages I've seen, I don't think it's a bad idea.

I'm still not with you on the thread date business. Maybe it's cause I'm an internet forum newbie but what actual harm or inconvienience is caused by posting on a thread that hasn't had posts in the last X amount of time ?

People could/should just check the thread start date and read through the thread before jumping in at the end and if someone opens a thread with a time gap between the last post and the first and they don't like that , then there's no point in getting strung out over it

oscarBravo

Alan Rouge wrote: »

What's wrong with quoting people who've not posted on the topic in years ? It's the posts that are supposed to be discussed, debated or "argued" over, not the poster.

There's nothing "wrong" with it, except that it's the equivalent of barging into a room an hour after an argument has ended, saying "...and another thing!"

People could/should just check the thread start date and read through the thread before jumping in at the end...

People should do a lot of things that they don't do.

...and if someone opens a thread with a time gap between the last post and the first and they don't like that , then there's no point in getting strung out over it

Who's getting strung out? What's being proposed is a mechanism to prevent someone from accidentally resurrecting a zombie thread when they didn't notice that it's years old. I'm not sure why this proposal is such a problem for you.

Red Sleeping Beauty

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's nothing "wrong" with it, except that it's the equivalent of barging into a room an hour after an argument has ended, saying "...and another thing!" .

But there's folk who post on a thread once and then don't post replies to posts directed at their post quoted.

and again, back to the arguement thing


Anyway, regardless , this thread/suggestion should probably be in Development.

Kylo Ren

The irony...

LoLth

the agony...

user Keno 92 infracted for deliberate thread bumping. Red card is for the bump not even being on topic.

fwiw, I smiled