The Smiley Smile Message Board

I don't mind if someone revives an old thread if they really have something relevant to add to it. The problem with reviving old threads is that some people chose to revive pointless ones that may end up stirring unnecessary drama. The point is, only revive an old thread if you have something significant to add or don't want to clog up the board with the same topic.

I'm assuming you mainly mean me when you say a few posters  :lol

Honestly I don't pay much attention to who is writing what most of the time. And I don't recognize your name. But if it's you, then I guess yes, I mean you!

Lately a few posters have been dredging up long-dormant threads: not a few weeks or months, but years. Sometimes in the past I've noticed members reacting very strongly against this practice; other times, posters rage when people don't do it, but rather begin a new thread on a topic that existed before. What are people's thoughts on the subject? Should old threads be resurrected? Is there a span of time after which it's inappropriate to exhume the corpse? Just curious.

I have mixed feelings. I actually enjoy seeing what people who are still around, myself included, may have said five, six, seven years ago. Conversely, it drives me nuts to see people quoting and responding to posts that were made so long ago by people who often haven't been back in quite some time (and obviously won't ever read the response, much less answer).

What's your opinion on old-threadiquette? (I laughed and called myself clever when I wrote that word. Someone has to call me clever. Why not me?)

What does it really matter?

What I really dislike are revived threads with dead links and boxes with red x's where photos used to be.

maybe in a year someone will dredge this one up again!

 :hat

Brian's a musical genius  ;D

If a poster is necroposting a thread with something interesting to say, why not? Just so long as it isn't "I agree" or "that's cool" or some other non-substantial thing.

@SloopJohnB

That is precisely the type of post I was alluding to in my post above.


It really does come of as, not only spam, but attention mongering.

It's worth resurrecting an old thread if it addresses a very specific question. Otherwise... No, it's annoying.

Case in point:

"Brian Wilson Appreciation Thread" (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,680.msg432357.html#msg432357). Generic as hell, no interesting information whatsoever, 2 pages, died in 2006.

1st post by thread digger:


WELL GEE, THANKS FOR THIS CRUCIAL PIECE OF INFORMATION. THIS WAS WELL WORTH RESURRECTING A THREAD THAT HAD DIED EIGHT YEARS AGO.

 >:(

I agree

It's worth resurrecting an old thread if it addresses a very specific question. Otherwise... No, it's annoying.

Case in point:

"Brian Wilson Appreciation Thread" (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,680.msg432357.html#msg432357). Generic as hell, no interesting information whatsoever, 2 pages, died in 2006.

1st post by thread digger:


WELL GEE, THANKS FOR THIS CRUCIAL PIECE OF INFORMATION. THIS WAS WELL WORTH RESURRECTING A THREAD THAT HAD DIED EIGHT YEARS AGO.

 >:(
[/quote/]
if a little thing like this bothers you then...wow.  :-\ I didn't tell a lie did I?  >:( that thread wasn't for "information" it was for appreciating Brian

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.
 

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 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