Don't bump old threads

Saipanne

Simple question. Why not?

deco nate

Saipanne wrote: »

Simple question. Why not?

Cause they are old and out of date, for the most part.

Just start a new thread and let the mods sort it out. Too many posters drag up threads up that are a year.. 2..or 3 up.
Why would you look that far back?

The Hill Billy

Simple question. Why?

padd b1975

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Simple question. Why?

Posters may have something worthwhile to add.

New users shouldn't be excluded from contributing to the site just because they weren't around when certain threads were fresh.

NoMore MrNiceGuy

Many posters on the old thread will have closed accounts so the conversation will not take off. That said some threads can resurrect better than others. Threads about disliked words etc. Political threads won't work.

The Hill Billy

Good to hear reasons why things should be changed instead of questioning why things are as they are. Keep them coming...

Ken.

I think as long as the original posters account is still open then any thread is fair game except for personal issues forum(and its subs) where its strictly forbidden to ask an o.p. for an update(and rightly so)

kneemos

How many are going to read back through an old thread?

Avada

My general thoughts would be, if you are adding to and updating an old thread, grand. If you are just replying to an old thread, which is adding nothing to it, it should be closed.

i.e. Where can I get a certain type of cheese in Dublin? Leave it be, the OP has probably got there answer in the 2/3 years.

An infrastructure project has been resurrected after it was cancelled, use the old thread, discuss away.

Just my 2c and rule of thumb

Ken.

kneemos wrote: »

How many are going to read back through an old thread?

I seen one bumped on consumer issues not so long ago that had an op in July 2003. I've seen others in there that are bumped after 5-6 years.

For example, do a google search for "problems with xbox-boards(.)ie" and refine your search to Ireland and the newest thread on the first google page is from 2012 and oldest is from 2008. If I didn't know how boards worked I could jump into any of them and ask a question.

Saipanne

Well, my question was based on an observation. Someone started a thread, and they were told to go search for it, as it had been done before. That person could find the old thread, but cannot contribute to it, for fear of breaking the charter.

This seems like a grey area, to me.

Thoughts?

pickarooney

When it's something like an old court case which has finally reached sentencing or a TV programme that has been renewed then fire away. It might be an idea to ask a mod to mark the thread title with -updated- or something.

Your always going to get the same threads coming up annually like poppies in November. Posters can't always be aware that a thread with the exact same tedious discussion exists. A merge or lock at the discretion of the moderators is in order here.

The Hill Billy

Some threads have longevity. The topic will always be relevant & it is generally OK to allow new posts. Other posts are only relevant at a point in time & new posts to these often add nothing & would probably be better in a new thread.

A couple of analogies for the above from the Food & Drink forum...

Poster starts a thread on Leek & Potato soup. Best spuds to use, various techniques discussed, etc, etc. This thread should be allowed stay open & accept new posts as long as they are relevant to what has already been discussed on the thread. Home made soup is home made soup regardless of whether it was made in 2000 or 2015. Someone posting years later to ask whether leeks should be fried in oil or butter for the best results is on-topic & still relevant even after all that time.

However, if a member pops in after some time & posts "I think Erin is crap. Knorr ftw!" That is not relevant & the post should be deleted. However, you may find that a flurry of posts is made debating the relevant merits of various packet soups, & in that case the thread will probably by locked.

With regards to point in time thread, an example of this would be "I need to make Leek & Potato soup on Friday. Where can I buy leeks in Enniscorthy?" If someone posts even a month later to say that leeks are available in Mossy's Greengrocers, well - it is no longer relevant & the thread may be locked.

I get the feeling that some members are a bit scared of creating new threads. Also, people probably find old threads by doing a search on a keyword & then fire off a post without reading the thread or even the OP to see if it is actually relevant to their query.

Think before you post & a lot of issues would be solved.

padd b1975

kneemos wrote: »

How many are going to read back through an old thread?

Posters who may have missed it first time around.
I mean, who can honestly say they go further than the first page or two of a forum?

There's a lot of posters who simply don't visit the site as often as others, it's easy to miss out on a thread in that scenario.

Skid X

If Boards doesn't want old threads being revived ...

1) You need to give some definition as to what is an old thread. The stock response of "it depends" is not much help to anyone.

2) The search function almost seems to favour old threads. When you do a search, the first result can be years old. If you don't want people responding to old threads, put them well down the search results and/or put some advice on the search result, something like "this thread will probably be locked if you reply to it. Consider another thread, or starting a new thread"

3) The standard response by mods of "Zombie Thread, Locked" is not very informative to new users. How are they meant to know what a Zombie Thread is? A bit more constructive help and the new user might stick around longer.

Spear

A fixed definition of old thread isn't possible. Different forums have different speeds and standards, it'd never work.

Digging up old threads also starts sending notification emails to the past participants and others subscriber to the thread, so they start getting emails on topics they've long since moved on from.

Saipanne

Saipanne wrote: »

Well, my question was based on an observation. Someone started a thread, and they were told to go search for it, as it had been done before. That person could find the old thread, but cannot contribute to it, for fear of breaking the charter.

This seems like a grey area, to me.

Thoughts?

I feel this point hasn't been well addressed. What should the above poster do?

NoMore MrNiceGuy

Saipanne wrote: »

I feel this point hasn't been well addressed. What should the above poster do?

The Hill Billy answered this. It depends. It has to be a rule of thumb. If someone drags up a "is property overvalued" thread from 2006 it's out of date. A "what americanisations annoy you" thread can hibernate for ages and start afresh.

padd b1975

Saipanne wrote: »

I feel this point hasn't been well addressed. What should the above poster do?

Personally I would go ahead and post as long as I felt it was within the charter-it's hardly crime of the century to do so.

If a mod did decide to pull me on it, I would be expecting (as a new user) a bit more of a reason than the unwelcoming and curt "zombie thread, locked".

Awkward Badger

Random_Name wrote: »

My general thoughts would be, if you are adding to and updating an old thread, grand. If you are just replying to an old thread, which is adding nothing to it, it should be closed.

i.e. Where can I get a certain type of cheese in Dublin? Leave it be, the OP has probably got there answer in the 2/3 years.

A lot of old threads show up in search results though. Answering an OP on where to buy cheese 3/4 years later might not matter to the OP or original contributors but it actually makes the thread relevant and useful again in the wider context rather than simply being an old irrelevant conversation taking up disk space somewhere.