Resurrecting old threads

[airslot]

I've noticed lately that a number of old (3-4yrs) threads have been resurrected, usually by relatively new members.

I think it's great that these old threads are being read and information gleaned from them. But, if these threads raise new questions, lets start a new thread with the new question and get some new and/or current comments and input without reviewing 100 old comments.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[ericb327]

I agree.

[accessbob]

But, if these threads raise new questions, lets start a new thread with the new question and get some new and/or current comments and input without reviewing 100 old comments.

Good luck in getting that to happen. It is a fact of forum life which occurs on every forum I've ever been on. I am a moderator on an Access forum which has had people answer 5 year old questions and it makes you wonder, WHY? But with new members, the fact that they are new, how would you ever educate them? The only way, even remotely possible, is to either lock down the threads after a specific time frame or force them to go through some sort of tutorial where you explained everything about how to post on the forum before they posted for the first time. Again, not a good solution as it would just put people off and they'd go away angry.

[Herknav]

I disagree. If new information exists, add on to the thread. The poster showed the initiative to do some research, which is commendable.

Besides, that new poster is in the unenviable position of either having people tell him/her to "use the search function" or hear complaints about reviving old threads. Why can't we as a community just help folks out instead of critiquing the way they ask for help? A good instructor molds his instruction to best fit the learning patterns of his/her student.

Herk

[ArkhmAsylm]

-
What's wrong with updating a topic within the same thread? It doesn't make much sense to continually start new threads based on the same subject - this just spreads out contextual information over more threads. Original posts can still contain timelessly helpful information, & the timeline can help us to understand changing norms.

Would you rather find, then dig through 50 threads based on the same subject, or 50 pages of a single thread?? We're all here to learn & maybe pass a little knowledge around.

[Crowman]

-
What's wrong with updating a topic within the same thread?

Would you rather find, then dig through 50 threads based on the same subject, or 50 pages of a single thread?? We're all here to learn & maybe pass a little knowledge around.

I totally agree with not starting a "new" old thread. I did a quick check and there is over 100,000 threads on this forum with a larger amount of posts within those threads.

[RayBar]

How can people be expected to research 100,000 threads to make sure their not covering old ground. Maybe that expectation by some is the reason were not seeing too many new topics being brought up lately. It will particularly deter the new people from asking a question for fear of some one getting put off.And to the ones pointing this out as a problem,start a new thread,were all waiting.

[ericb327]

I think starting new threads can give an updated view of the members. I myself think a little differently after just a couple of months here.

[ericb327]

How can people be expected to research 100,000 threads to make sure their not covering old ground. Maybe that expectation by some is the reason were not seeing too many new topics being brought up lately. It will particularly deter the new people from asking a question for fear of some one getting put off.And to the ones pointing this out as a problem,start a new thread,were all waiting.

New posters are already looked upon as not knowing what they are talking about to a certain degree. Just because someone is new to the forum doesn't mean they are new to CC or OC. One guy attacked me asking me what tactical training I had, how old I was because I challenged members to post the use of lethal force laws for their states. Bravado I guess. I really like this forum though.

[Herknav]

How can people be expected to research 100,000 threads to make sure their (sic) not covering old ground. Maybe that expectation by some is the reason were not seeing too many new topics being brought up lately. It will particularly deter the new people from asking a question for fear of some one getting put off.And to the ones pointing this out as a problem,start a new thread,were all waiting.

One way is to use the "Search" function. That expectation (using the "Search" function) has been out there since Day 1 of forums. However, many nebulous, vague thread titles make this a hit-or-miss proposition. Nowadays, you're just as likely to see people complaining that you're dredging up an old thread. This brings me back to my original point: You're not going to please everyone. Somebody is ready to "correct" you no matter what you do.

Besides, I don't see why this (either method) upsets people. My wife has never heard me screaming in abject horror and come into the room to find me wrestling the mouse with all my might in an attempt to keep the cursor from clicking on something I didn't want to see. If you don't want to read something, there's a little white "x" in a red background toward the upper right corner of your screen.

I, for one, am just glad people are posting and bringing new questions or points of view to our little corner of the 'net.

Herk

[shockwave]

If new information exists, add on to the thread. The poster showed the initiative to do some research, which is commendable.

Agreed. Proper form is to find an existing relevant thread rather than start a new one. Point of order: The thing that gets newbies slammed is when they start a new thread regarding something that has been thoroughly debated already. It matters not that a thread is old, or that it has "x" number of comments on it already. That is completely immaterial.

What does count is that the user in question is using the search function for the right reasons.

[RayBar]

That would work,(use the search funtion)but realistically,how many people who have a question pop into their heads do that much research before asking a simple question. I am realatively new to this forum, I don't know how long its been around,or how many questions have been asked,but I could venture a guess that just about everything has been adressed in one form or another. Breaking news items aside,could you really come up with something entirely new to the cc/oc crowd.Somebodys bound to have heard it before,somewhere.Keep in mind too that threads are only old if you have read them before.With new people being added all the time,whats old to some is new to them.Just sayin.

[cj]

Lots of these probably come up from Google searches...someone's interested in a topic, search for it, and find an old thread. Being new to the forum, they sign up to make their comment in said thread.

Of course, one recent example I stumbled across was just a spammer trying to sell his product, so he searched for anything closely related and posted about how great his product was in each thread. Mods clamped down fairly quickly :)

[Hiram25]

I have no problem with it. In fact, the older I get the old threads look like new ones.

[suntzu]

I don't mind resurrecting old threads. In fact, if someone starts a new one at lest one person 'politely' reminds them to use the search function. You can't win either way. The thing that I find that is more of a nuisance is when someone starts a thread about a news story and then two or three other folks start a thread on the same subject. And that is when the original thread has like 500 viewers and 50 posts so far that day and is one of the most active threads. And when someone says 'already running here' people still post to both or multiple threads.

I guess if that is one of the few things in life that bug me then I am doing OK LOL