Resurrecting Old Threads
Wheeee
Join Date: 2003-02-18 Member: 13713Members, Reinforced - Shadow
Join Date: 2003-02-18 Member: 13713Members, Reinforced - Shadow
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">this is getting annoying.</div> I would like to propose a point of forum etiquette, to prevent discontinuity in old threads that people who are new to the discussions forum or people who would like to revisit the topic.
Basically, maybe we could establish some sort of guideline for revisiting or reviving old topics. This way we don't get so many "holy threadcromancy" reactions, and hopefully waste less forum bandwidth with pointless posts like that.
For now, I'd like to propose the following as general etiquette:
1) Someone who is interested in a topic should first do a search for the topic (just type in the keywords in the box at the bottom right of the forum index) to see if the topic has already been covered.
2) If the topic has been covered extensively, the poster should read through a few of the threads to familiarize themselves with what's already been said.
3) If the topic is old (>1 month inactivity), but a poster wants to post a new take, new information, or a different viewpoint as a tangent, post a new thread with your stuff but include a summary of the old thread and a link.
I think several people are kind of disconcerted by the bumpage of old threads, so let's see if we can't work something out on it.
Discuss?
Basically, maybe we could establish some sort of guideline for revisiting or reviving old topics. This way we don't get so many "holy threadcromancy" reactions, and hopefully waste less forum bandwidth with pointless posts like that.
For now, I'd like to propose the following as general etiquette:
1) Someone who is interested in a topic should first do a search for the topic (just type in the keywords in the box at the bottom right of the forum index) to see if the topic has already been covered.
2) If the topic has been covered extensively, the poster should read through a few of the threads to familiarize themselves with what's already been said.
3) If the topic is old (>1 month inactivity), but a poster wants to post a new take, new information, or a different viewpoint as a tangent, post a new thread with your stuff but include a summary of the old thread and a link.
I think several people are kind of disconcerted by the bumpage of old threads, so let's see if we can't work something out on it.
Discuss?
Comments
I have to say I find the different topics refreshing when compared to the current bumper crop of blahblah Bush vs blahblah Kerry.
Making new threads just spreads the information over a larger area and you're just cluttering the forum then. It'd be like the US congress having 6 laws describing the same thing with different words...or something.
Because tons of, "Where did [?] thread go?!?" threads would pop up in their place.
Because tons of, "Where did [?] thread go?!?" threads would pop up in their place. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
no they wouldn't, because the people that made the original thread would probably understand why, especially if it was a bad thread, and 90% of teh locked threads are.
Recap for the lazy people:
This is a forum not a chatroom for one and as long as the idea is not dead then you can reply to it, <i>especially</i> if you haven't replied to it before (as was the case for me)
<span style='color:orange'>If the topic is dead then it should be pruned/deleted. </span>
<!--QuoteBegin-Dr_133t+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dr_133t)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why dont they just delete threads, instead of lock them? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good question. The I&S topic should never be deleted as the topics won't go dead, but to keep out spam they lock them. Zunni and Bob are doing an A+ job, leave them alone. The Off Topic, General, and (occasionally) Discussion threads need to be pruned regularly. (not doing so leads to crashings). Bottem line Dr_133t is that the NSF (Natural-Selection Forums) has a "no deletion" policy. However I thinkt he General and Off Topic forums need to become exempt from this policy so they say nice and clean and for the benefit of the whole community. Spam threads in those two forums need to be deleted instead of locked as well.
To be a "dead" topic means that there is nothing new and constructive that can be added to it besides chatty spam or that the subject's topic material is dead. (example: all of the Bush vs. Kerry election threads after the election has passed)
(example of what can never be dead as long as gamming exists: an I&S thread)
(example of thread which will never die: the "what is love?" thread)
theadomancy is a good thing, bumping is an impolite thing (forum ettiquite terminology)
<span style='color:blue'>What is threadomancy: </span>
<span style='color:gray'>replying to an old, forgotten thread which is not dead and one in which you constructively contribute</span>
<span style='color:blue'>What is bumping:</span>
<span style='color:gray'>replying to an old thread purely for the sake of moving it up to the top of the forum's heap (as they are sorted by last reply date)</span>
<span style='color:blue'>Why I in particular don't care to bump:</span>
<span style='color:gray'>As far as I know, Zunni and I are <span style='color:orange'>the <i>only two</i> people in the <i>entire</i> NSF who read beyond the first page of a forum</span>.</span>
Also, the NSF moderation team needs to learn the following: like topics should be <span style='color:red'>merged</span>. Merging is your friend. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not quite sure what the problem is, to be honest. Why not just post in the old thread? The nature of a discussion board makes thread date irrelevant, I think, and if an old topic is still interesting, why not discuss it? The conversations seem to be continuing with no problems (albeit maybe with new or different members posting).
I have to say I find the different topics refreshing when compared to the current bumper crop of blahblah Bush vs blahblah Kerry. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well said.
~edit~
*cough* speaking of forum ettiquette *cough* In the future Wheee, if you have a problem/issue with me you PM me. Not be a little **** and make a thread to insult me.
it's not just you, lots of people do it. I occasionally do it.
and invariably people post "omg threadcromancy" (like me) or "why are you bringing up a 2 year old post?"
quit being so defensive x5. you're not the only one *gasp* to read beyond the first page, i regularly go to 4 or 5 if i haven't checked the forums in a while. however most of the time i find that nothing worthwhile has been posted.
sometimes threads die for a reason, and overzealous newcomers take it upon themselves to revive them; i was proposing this because it would help in threads where everyone's forgotten what they were talking about to have a summary instead of having to read through the entire thing yet again.