Old-Threadiquette (tm)

[RangeRoverA1]

Many people revive threads. Relax.

[musicismylife101]

Revive one or two threads with relevant and useful/interesting information = fine with that
Revive a bunch of threads with comments that do not add to the discussion or are unnecessary = no.

Only revive an old thread if you feel that your input would really add something to it. Also if you see an old thread full of batshit crazy stuff such as arguments that have escalated DO NOT revive it by putting in comments like "That should've been locked" or "What was going on here?" or something like that. Those threads should be dead and buried. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.

[bgas]

Only revive an old thread if you feel that your input would really add something to it. Also if you see an old thread full of batshit crazy stuff such as arguments that have escalated DO NOT revive it by putting in comments like "That should've been locked" or "What was going on here?" or something like that. Those threads should be dead and buried. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.

But where's the fun in that?  Tis is still part of a BBs site and they're all about fun fun fun, right?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Revive one or two threads with relevant and useful/interesting information = fine with that
Revive a bunch of threads with comments that do not add to the discussion or are unnecessary = no.

Only revive an old thread if you feel that your input would really add something to it. Also if you see an old thread full of batshit crazy stuff such as arguments that have escalated DO NOT revive it by putting in comments like "That should've been locked" or "What was going on here?" or something like that. Those threads should be dead and buried. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.

That's how I feel too. Hell on some forums people get warnings for doing that. Not here, though. I myself got a week long ban for bumping old threads, over on a Lost message board

[SloopJohnB]

2 both SloopJohnB & pixletwin: you are entitled to your own opinion as much as anyone here, but those were weak & pointless points. pixletwin, you say that retrokid wanted to get attention by a mere "Brian's a musical genius" comment? But wasn't it called "Brian Appreciation Thread" & she expressed her own, well, appreciation of Brian? Also, I don't see the difference between posting this short bit on an old thread & starting a new one by saying so. Even if retrokid was seeking for attention, it's definitely not for herself, but rather other folks coming in & share their own thoughts on Brian. In the Music section, Luther very rightly noted that making a thread doesn't mean owning it (or sth. along the lines). Each can contribute & enlighten it adding more useful information, therefore, raise the direction of the thread from silly rant to interesting discussion. So, instead of bashing a newbie someone could post crucial piece of information as you, SloopJohnB, worded it (for example, some stories relating the meeting with a Beach Boy).

The comment I was referring to was weak and pointless. Mine had a point: to show an example of what is pointless.

You say you "don't see the difference between posting this short bit on an old thread & starting a new one by saying so". Well, you see, there's no difference. Just as you shouldn't dig up a thread from 2006 to say "Brian is a musical genius", you shouldn't start a new thread either. It would be like going on an automotive message board and starting a thread just to say "I like cars".

Billy is right, there are messageboards where that kind of behavior would lead to bans. I'm not saying we should do this here. I just want to say that it's annoying.

[pixletwin]

2 both SloopJohnB & pixletwin: you are entitled to your own opinion as much as anyone here, but those were weak & pointless points. pixletwin, you say that retrokid wanted to get attention by a mere "Brian's a musical genius" comment? But wasn't it called "Brian Appreciation Thread" & she expressed her own, well, appreciation of Brian? Also, I don't see the difference between posting this short bit on an old thread & starting a new one by saying so. Even if retrokid was seeking for attention, it's definitely not for herself, but rather other folks coming in & share their own thoughts on Brian. In the Music section, Luther very rightly noted that making a thread doesn't mean owning it (or sth. along the lines). Each can contribute & enlighten it adding more useful information, therefore, raise the direction of the thread from silly rant to interesting discussion. So, instead of bashing a newbie someone could post crucial piece of information as you, SloopJohnB, worded it (for example, some stories relating the meeting with a Beach Boy).

What does "sth" mean. You include that in nearly every post you make.

[rab2591]

2 both SloopJohnB & pixletwin: you are entitled to your own opinion as much as anyone here, but those were weak & pointless points. pixletwin, you say that retrokid wanted to get attention by a mere "Brian's a musical genius" comment? But wasn't it called "Brian Appreciation Thread" & she expressed her own, well, appreciation of Brian? Also, I don't see the difference between posting this short bit on an old thread & starting a new one by saying so. Even if retrokid was seeking for attention, it's definitely not for herself, but rather other folks coming in & share their own thoughts on Brian. In the Music section, Luther very rightly noted that making a thread doesn't mean owning it (or sth. along the lines). Each can contribute & enlighten it adding more useful information, therefore, raise the direction of the thread from silly rant to interesting discussion. So, instead of bashing a newbie someone could post crucial piece of information as you, SloopJohnB, worded it (for example, some stories relating the meeting with a Beach Boy).

What does "sth" mean. You include that in nearly every post you make.

From urban dictionary:

sth
sumthn, somethin, something
i wanna do sth fun today, im sick of this boring sh*t here

[RangeRoverA1]

Only revive an old thread if you feel that your input would really add something to it. Also if you see an old thread full of batshit crazy stuff such as arguments that have escalated DO NOT revive it by putting in comments like "That should've been locked" or "What was going on here?" or something like that. Those threads should be dead and buried. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.

What you said is fair & I certainly didn't get Rei's logic behind opening that thread you're referring to. But we talked about the "Brian Appreciation" topic, and in there wasn't any argument taking place; everyone simply dropped a few words about Brian. So did retrokid, but somehow she was greeted by cold & too serious advisory responses. Don't tell me it's the 1st & only "meaningless" topic having been revived in the all history of the board. I'll again reiterate: the topic could very easily be turned into sth. informative & interesting, since we all have varying degrees of BBs knowledge & different preferences as far as the type of discussion goes (some like talking fun; some analyze the various instruments played live & in the studio; some be dipped in the Mike interviews, taking his words out of context etc. etc.).

[Niko]

Only revive an old thread if you feel that your input would really add something to it. Also if you see an old thread full of batshit crazy stuff such as arguments that have escalated DO NOT revive it by putting in comments like "That should've been locked" or "What was going on here?" or something like that. Those threads should be dead and buried. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.

What you said is fair & I certainly didn't get Rei's logic behind opening that thread you're referring to. But we talked about the "Brian Appreciation" topic, and in there wasn't any argument taking place; everyone simply dropped a few words about Brian. So did retrokid, but somehow she was greeted by cold & too serious advisory responses. Don't tell me it's the 1st & only "meaningless" topic having been revived in the all history of the board. I'll again reiterate: the topic could very easily be turned into sth. informative & interesting, since we all have varying degrees of BBs knowledge & different preferences as far as the type of discussion goes (some like talking fun; some analyze the various instruments played live & in the studio; some be dipped in the Mike interviews, taking his words out of context etc. etc.).

I don't think its so much the fact an old thread was bumped, its the consistent bumping of threads, or going into an old thread to tell everyone it should have been locked. Its comes across as trying to get attention.
Its ok if you have something interesting to add to an old discussion, or if some new light has been shed on the topic since the conversation has ceased, but if its to say 'i like this!'...eh.
 

[filledeplage]

Only revive an old thread if you feel that your input would really add something to it. Also if you see an old thread full of batshit crazy stuff such as arguments that have escalated DO NOT revive it by putting in comments like "That should've been locked" or "What was going on here?" or something like that. Those threads should be dead and buried. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.

What you said is fair & I certainly didn't get Rei's logic behind opening that thread you're referring to. But we talked about the "Brian Appreciation" topic, and in there wasn't any argument taking place; everyone simply dropped a few words about Brian. So did retrokid, but somehow she was greeted by cold & too serious advisory responses. Don't tell me it's the 1st & only "meaningless" topic having been revived in the all history of the board. I'll again reiterate: the topic could very easily be turned into sth. informative & interesting, since we all have varying degrees of BBs knowledge & different preferences as far as the type of discussion goes (some like talking fun; some analyze the various instruments played live & in the studio; some be dipped in the Mike interviews, taking his words out of context etc. etc.).

I don't think its so much the fact an old thread was bumped, its the consistent bumping of threads, or going into an old thread to tell everyone it should have been locked. Its comes across as trying to get attention.
Its ok if you have something interesting to add to an old discussion, or if some new light has been shed on the topic since the conversation has ceased, but if its to say 'i like this!'...eh.
 

Woodstock - I would agree that it is often problem of "consistent bumping..." Just because you can...a lot of older threads are meaningful, and, perhaps for a new member, who might not realize a "good" question has been answered well and by people who have a lot of good information, there is some profound aspect to add to the discussion, instead of a redundant +1.  If you're a newbie, you might not realize some topic "new to you" might have been debated, discussed and resolved.

And, I "lurked" about two years before I dove into the sometimes intimidating shark tank.   

[Niko]

I lurked for quite a while as well, though I'm still a newcomer even including that time (my first visit was when TWGMTR came out). I spent a lot of time just reading through older threads, trying to understand just "how do people really do feel about Bruce Johnston" 

[Heysaboda]

Revive one or two threads with relevant and useful/interesting information = fine with that
Revive a bunch of threads with comments that do not add to the discussion or are unnecessary = no.

Only revive an old thread if you feel that your input would really add something to it. Also if you see an old thread full of batshit crazy stuff such as arguments that have escalated DO NOT revive it by putting in comments like "That should've been locked" or "What was going on here?" or something like that. Those threads should be dead and buried. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.

I enjoy seeing the zombie threads revived -- I haven't been on Smiley Smile Dot Net forever, and there is a lot that I've missed.  It's pretty easy to skip the ones that are just "too silly"........

By the way, is "necroposting" a real word?  I've not seen that one before!  Cool!

 

EDIT:

Apparently it is!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=necro%20post

[RangeRoverA1]

I don't think its so much the fact an old thread was bumped, its the consistent bumping of threads, or going into an old thread to tell everyone it should have been locked. Its comes across as trying to get attention.
Its ok if you have something interesting to add to an old discussion, or if some new light has been shed on the topic since the conversation has ceased, but if its to say 'i like this!'...eh.

I feel like we are going in circles now. I've already explained myself on every angle of this old threadiquette discussion. Let's just agree to amicably disagree (except the super-black bit).

[bgas]

I don't think its so much the fact an old thread was bumped, its the consistent bumping of threads, or going into an old thread to tell everyone it should have been locked. Its comes across as trying to get attention.
Its ok if you have something interesting to add to an old discussion, or if some new light has been shed on the topic since the conversation has ceased, but if its to say 'i like this!'...eh.

I feel like we are going in circles now. I've already explained myself on every angle of this old threadiquette discussion. Let's just agree to amicably disagree (except the super-black bit).

Maybe, just maybe now,  the whole world isn't about RRA1 and the thought could apply to the rest of the board

[RangeRoverA1]

Maybe, just maybe now, the whole world isn't about RRA1 and the thought could apply to the rest of the board

Thank you for bringing up one of my favorite BBs songs in the post addressed towards me. It cheered me up! Seriously though, you're way off the mark, because what I did was just respond back to Woodstock that we were going to repeat ourselves, as we dropped in exact same points before in this thread. I didn't take his post about resurrection of an old topic by simpleton "I like this!" as a hint to my posting habit. Of course he meant that in general; a good number of folks suffer from this disease - here or other boards.

[JK]

I got ticked off for resurrecting some old threads a while back. But hey, I saw this old Captain Beefheart topic and being a major Beefheart fan I went for it. And a bunch of others posters followed suit, with most sensible and enlightening posts. I think "sensible" is the key word here. (Thinks: Must resurrect it again some time.)

[JK]

As evidence that resurrecting old threads with red warning messages need not be a bad thing, see the "Favorite Instrumentals" topic, which I dug up yesterday.