Baby Brian Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 This seems to just keep coming up all the time so I have to ask. How old do you think a posting can get where it would still be ok to reply to it? Generally, I think anything over 6 months old should be laid to rest. This would ensure any replies to the original poster (OP) will still be current and valid to the general thinking of everyone at that time. It also makes it more likely that the OP is still following/contributing to their original post. Anything over 6 months old (definitely a year), and it is much more acceptable for you to just start your own thread, otherwise you are just hijacking someone else's thread and should be put in a corner for a time out. What does everyone else think? Link to comment
Codymoogle Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 I agree, plain and simple! Link to comment
AwakenEvil Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Remember the double tap method Link to comment
Baby Brian Posted August 22, 2014 Author Share Posted August 22, 2014 That's when you left click on a post right? (Or my military training on how to put someone down with an AR) Either way, let sleeping zombie threads lie. Link to comment
rusty pins Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 I think a lot depends on the subject of the post. Link to comment
DLdapper Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Necro depends much on the topic of the post. Some things can be posted on forever, like "what diaper are you wearing now" topics. Other topics where a specific person is asking for specific advice should be closed much sooner. However on the flip side a topic which is meant to hold general advice or experience should be open forever. Link to comment
Baby Brian Posted August 22, 2014 Author Share Posted August 22, 2014 Right, the cut off I'm thinking of wouldn't be from when the post was first started. It would be timed out based on it's newest reply. That way if someone is always replying it will always remain active. I also get the catch 22 will always be a factor, and really can't be helped, but wouldn't this still be a better solution? At the very least it would vindicate new posters in their justification for creating a new one (so long as the old post has timed out). One other big reason I think new double posts get called out is because the question they are asking has already been answered in the old post. It also seems like we often get several of the same types of posts within a month of each other because people often don't bother searching for similar topics. (ie. A news article) I wonder if it would be possible to mandate for starting any new thread to also require a search of that thread's title. This wouldn't catch everything, but who knows, it might help (just thinking out loud). Link to comment
DonsbabyKS Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 I get tired of being called stupid because I have replied to an old post. Link to comment
DailyDi Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 I don't have a problem with necro posting if you can add something to the topic. 5 Link to comment
Baby Brian Posted August 22, 2014 Author Share Posted August 22, 2014 That's another good point. After someone else revives an old post, is it ok to continue posting to it now? I'd say it's now free game to add new posts since that thread is now active again. Or am I wrong on that since it would be encouraging the new content? Link to comment
DonsbabyKS Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 We had someone who went back this last week and replied to every post on a certain topic, sometimes saying nothing different. Link to comment
DiaperPony Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 I like the necro posts because sometimes they'll revive topics that I never browsed back to.. or it'll be the same topics but with different voices from the past. 2 Link to comment
Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I don't have a problem with necro posting if you can add something to the topic. This is generally my opinion on the subject as well. If something useful can be added to the topic, I don't care if it's a necropost. On larger forums very extensive threads can become problematic, so some places will lock an old thread and start a new one to continue the discussion without causing problems. The old thread will remain archived for reference and eventually the new one will be superceded as needed. DD doesn't have the number of members and posts required for this to be an issue though, so necroposting shouldn't be a concern unless the poster is just spamming the thread with nothing to contribute. ("Cool" isn't contributing to the discussion.) Link to comment
Dill_Pickle Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 DailyDi should not leave people in tears...that's not what it's for......lol Link to comment
Baby Brian Posted September 9, 2014 Author Share Posted September 9, 2014 All good points. It seems as a general rule of thumb it's ok to post to an old thread so long as you have something relevant for the OP. If nothing more than a "me too" post, or just trying to bring an old topic back to life for some more rehashing, then it's better to start a new one. If we spot an offender, maybe it would just be best to something like "fyi this is an old thread and may not be relevant any more. Want to start a new one and see what everyone is thinking about now?" Certainly no need for call outs like "are you blind". I guess no need for locking old threads either (even if it will likely continue with newbies). Not really much of an actual solution, but guidelines are better than nothing. Right? Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now