Old-Threadiquette (tm)

[the captain]

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?)

[bluesno1fann]

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

I enjoy checking out older threads. Love seeing what people had to say years ago, and checking out some of the people who are no longer here.

Plus, there have been some really interesting topics in the past. Beach Boys and the Mafia, anyone?

[musicismylife101]

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.

[Niko]

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.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,16045.msg422838.html#msg422838

Perfect example.

But I don't mind old threads being dug up if they're good for discussion. When WIBNTLA came out I bumped the "Would Surf's Up Have Been The Greatest" thread cuz I knew there was quite a lot to be discussed. And a lot was discussed.
So as long as there's a reason for the bumping.

[the captain]

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

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!

[bgas]

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

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!

What does it really matter?

[filledeplage]

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?)

My take was that the policy was to check to see if there was a prior discussion thread before starting that same discussion again?

Especially if there are experts or "honored guests" who have posted info to not restart the same topics or issues...

[pixletwin]

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.

[the captain]

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

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!

What does it really matter?

Who are you asking, and what? Are you asking what does it matter if people dredge up old threads? (If so, then I'm not saying it does, I was just interested in it, having seen different people with different opinions on the topic. Just curious what other people thought.)

If you are asking what does it matter who is the person or people doing the thread-revivals, then I don't think it does (as evidenced by my note that I don't really pay attention to who is posting most of the time).

If you are asking something else, I have no idea what it might be.

[pixletwin]

He is asking why it bothers you if someone necroposts.

[the captain]

Oh. That's easy. It doesn't.

[bgas]

Then everything is cool. Time for Whirled Peas

[KittyKat]

I find it annoying. I guess some people don't. What I really dislike are revived threads with dead links and boxes with red x's where photos used to be.

[bluesno1fann]

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

That part I agree with. Especially in the Last Photos of Dennis and Carl thread. Disappointing

[Heysaboda]

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

 

[bgas]

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

 

Let's do it again every six months

[RangeRoverA1]

Many people revive threads. Relax.

[SloopJohnB]

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". Generic as hell, no interesting information whatsoever, 2 pages, died in 2006.

1st post by thread digger:

Brian's a musical genius 

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

 

[pixletwin]

@SloopJohnB

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

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.

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

[bgas]

@SloopJohnB

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

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.

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

Thank you, Thank you very much

[pixletwin]

My fingers do love on occasion to go clickety-clack. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

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". Generic as hell, no interesting information whatsoever, 2 pages, died in 2006.

1st post by thread digger:

Brian's a musical genius 

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

 

I agree

[bgas]

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". Generic as hell, no interesting information whatsoever, 2 pages, died in 2006.

1st post by thread digger:

Brian's a musical genius 

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

 

I agree

you agree it's a crucial piece of information or you agree it's a tragic miscarriage of justice or you agree it's annoying or what's behind door number four

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I agree that bumping an old thread that wasn't really used in the first place is pointless, so I'm agreeing with SJB

[retrokid67]

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". Generic as hell, no interesting information whatsoever, 2 pages, died in 2006.

1st post by thread digger:

Brian's a musical genius 

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