Just Curious.

[LuvsGurl]

Been spending a good bit of time here recently and have noticed a trend.

Where do people dig up these ancient topics to reply to? I've seen topics resurrected that are one, two, even three years old. They have to be buried 10+ pages back on the list but somehow new people always seem to find them.

Are there no date constraints when you go to search for something? Are people just too dense to read the date, including the year, and see if what they are posting in is even relevant anymore?

Maybe we should consider topics that disappear or lock after 6 months from the last reply? I've seen a number of other forums that use a similar method and it does not seem to disrupt regular posting.

[underwhere]

Sometimes, new people bring new insights into old threads. Also, old threads bring new insights to new people.

I have no problem with people resurrecting old threads, so long as there is more substance than slander, if you get what I mean.

[BBB]

Yeah, lock after 6 months is my favorite.

And I just assume they find them by searching for key words.

[LuvsGurl]

Sometimes, new people bring new insights into old threads. Also, old threads bring new insights to new people.

I have no problem with people resurrecting old threads, so long as there is more substance than slander, if you get what I mean.

I would be inclined to agree with you, however I have yet to see any of this "substance" reflected in any of the posts resurrecting threads that I have come across in the past weeks/months.

It seems likely to me that.

A ) People are using the search function and failing to look at the date on a thread before inserting their 2 cents into the discussion.

B ) People are simply trolling through page after page of old material and bringing something back for absolutely no reason at all.

I try to give the benefit of the doubt whenever appropriate, but that then raises the question "What the heck are newbies typing into the search box to arrive at these ancient threads?"

[timmyc]

I like seeing some old stuff pop up once in a while, see if peoples feelings have changed reminiscing about posters who have left or passed on. Sometimes they can be quite comical and sometimes they can be very pertinent to a current situation.

[AutieAB]

Lock after a period of time is a pain in the arse because sometimes it's better to dig up an old thread than start a new one (to keep the context of a discussion that has come back to prominence for example). But yes, digging up an old thread to say "yeah, I agree" to somebody who posted 3 years ago and hasn't logged in for 18 months is pretty silly.

The best solution to this kind of thing I've come across is a message that pops up when people click the reply button on old threads that says words to the effect of "Hey, this thread is <n> years old. Unless you're contributing something new that's relevant to this particular thread, consider starting a new one instead" with a button to start a new thread instead of replying. I don't know if IPB supports that though.

[Sophie ♥]

I'm con-lock threads. I mean, some of them are just REALLY dumb and need to be shut down, but a lock after a duration of time is just sorta stupid. Sometimes people can add new relevant information. Sometimes a bump might bring a topic previously unknown to the surface.

But most importantly, if we locked old threads... we'd just get the exact same thread again - over and over and over. I mean, we get enough of that anyway. >.<

-Sophie

[sarah_ab]

sometimes when i'm really bored, i'll look at threads 2-3 years old and dredge them back up... but i am aware of the date and usually i'm not giving advise to a member who posted 3 years ago and hasn't been back in just as much time. But I dunno, i mean i'm not sure why its such a big deal, because when you open a thread, you can read the first post, see the date, then real the last post and see if you want to spend your time reading all in between and if not, just back out of the thread...

[Jackiewope]

THANK YOU.

I hate it when people necro threads. It's a personal opinion and I'm sticking to it.

*puts superglue on opinion and its on it* Hmph!

[LuvsGurl]

See, this, this is the exact kind of thing I am talking about.

http://www.dailydiapers.com/board/index.php?showtopic=5029

Response to a post from 2007, and I could easily find 10 more topics that have been done the same way within the past week or so.

It's ridiculous, it's a violation of netiquette, it just doesn't make sense.

[KittenAB]

Would one rather have a hundred threads of the same topic?

[LuvsGurl]

Would one rather have a hundred threads of the same topic?

Don't we already?

I could go right now and pick 50 "Which diaper is best?" topics or 50 "I like to mess myself." topics or 50 "Where do I get X" topics.

Logic dictates that if something hasn't been replied to in the last 6 months the topic has been effectively covered and discussion is over. It is therefore considered a finished conversation and the group moves on to the next thing.

Of all the topics I've seen resurrected, none of the new replies actually contain any pertinent information. The new posts don't serve to advance the conversation any. They are all merely some numbskull who felt that he just had to interject his two cents into the discussion and are generally made in reply to a comment by someone who hasn't even logged on in the past 6 months. So we can therefore conclude that the person they are replying to will never read the comment.

Let's take the Webmaster's thread on his new office chair, posted today. http://www.dailydiapers.com/board/index.php?showtopic=26514

You are telling me that if someone digs that up 6 months or 3 years from now what they have to contribute is going to matter in the least? No. Because by that point discussion of said new chair will have ended. The chair won't be new anymore, the chair may not even exist anymore. Any comments on it made will be irrelevant and serve absolutely no purpose.

It's like debating McCain vs Obama for 2008 here today in 2011. Anything said about who is the more qualified candidate or which would do what better is moot because the event being discussed happened over two years ago. It's over with, done, finished. If you want to start discussion on McCain vs Obama for 2012 be my guest, though that is hardly relevant either because the candidates for the upcoming election have not been chosen yet.

Do you see my point at all? Or am I just wasting energy and talking over your head?

[Bettypooh]

Do you see my point at all? Or am I just wasting energy and talking over your head?

I see your point, and I'm against it for the reasons already given And you're not talking over most people's heads- for you to think that you are is close to insulting If 'nettiquite' means so much to you, why are you being obsequious to everyone here?

This website is being run the way the owner wants to run it. If you don't like the way it's being run the option of you leaving is wide open.

Bettypooh

[sarah_ab]

what if three years from now i buy a new chair, and instrad of making a whole new topic about a new chair, decide to post on an already 'new chair' topic in existance.... should i isntead make another topic... and what if my new chair happens to be a lot like the new chair DD bought.... or what if I buy that chair because he ahs it, then 6 months from now i have lots of problems with it, shouldn't i resurrect the thread and post there?

there are so many reasons a thread can be resurrected.... besides the fact that there are already numerous threads about resurrecting old threas out there... its putting me in the mood to just necro old threads... ohhhh soooo tempting...

[timmyc]

I made a friend on here a few days ago, I went back and read all his old stuff, and have a much better understanding of where he is coming from. I have seen his name on here before but didn't really know a lot about him. should his older posts vanish because some are more than 6 months old?

[newlydiaperd]

^ creepy...

Old topics die hard. I'd love to rehash some old arguments.

[diaperpt]

I've read enough slams of people starting new threads (whether you or I might think they are stupid or frivolous is irrelevant) when there has been other discussions of the same topic. It seems then, that there are some others out and around on this site who have a vastly different point of view from yours.

Now, if we bash people for starting new threads and bash people for not starting new threads, aren't we bringing up an old thread about how we aren't very friendly and supportive on this site??

Hmmm....let me go back and check some old threads on that. But, if it gives me some ideas, WHERE oh WHERE should I post them??? Well, I know what you would say, but what of the others??

[NikABDL]

Sometimes, new people bring new insights into old threads. Also, old threads bring new insights to new people.

I have no problem with people resurrecting old threads, so long as there is more substance than slander, if you get what I mean.

Great comments i totally agree

[bignappybo]

I totaly agree that after a set period of time a thread should be closed,after all how far can you go back and expect to get an answer to things.

[Marcuss]

I am so tempted to bookmark this thread so i can bring it up in a year or so .... just for the irony...

[AutieAB]

I am so tempted to bookmark this thread so i can bring it up in a year or so .... just for the irony...

Dammit that was my evil plan

[sarah_ab]

hahah i already necrod a ton of old threads after this

[Yvhuce]

Personally, I'd rather deal with old threads than have to keep posting responses to the same topics over and over...

[WildKat]

I think it's better to have old topics replied to rather than having new ones started on the same topic. It keeps everything together so you don't end up having 15 or 20 topics on the exact same thing because the ones before it were closed.