View Poll Results: Is it ok to revive old threads with discussion related to the original topic?

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    17 51.52%
  • No

    16 48.48%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,231

    Thumbs up Is posting in old threads really such a bad thing?

    Please read before voting!

    This afternoon, I started a private discussion amongst the mods and leaders about this subject after seeing a thread get moderated for having been revived after a year. After a little discussion, I've been tasked with taking this inquiry of mine to the general public to get feedback from our valued members

    I am of the opinion that not only is it ok to make posts in old threads, this type of behavior should be encouraged within WHT.

    Here are a few relevant points that came up in private discussion, and my responses to them:

    **********
    The common reasoning seems to be that it is unfair to those that are subscribed to get notification of a new post, when, since the thread is long dead, their interest is as well.
    It seems to me we do our members a great disservice when we make assumptions about what does and doesn't interest them. The members are the ones who subscribe. The members should be the ones to determine whether their interest has waned, and if so, they can click the unsubscribe link in the notification email that they receive.

    Here's another piece to this equation:

    Does reviving the old thread make more sense than starting a new?
    Absolutely! In fact, I think when you discourage relevant posting in established threads, you rob the people who have subscribed to the original thread of information in which they have expressed interest. Again, if their position has changed, they have the power to quickly and easily disable notification, but requiring new information about an old topic to go into a new thread dilutes the purpose of subscribing in the first place.

    Are the details posted two years ago relevant to the details of today?
    I personally believe if you have new information, an original perspective to share or a timely update on out-of-date information, the original thread in which that discussion took place is the most appropriate place to share that info. It would eliminate a whole lot of "we discussed this topic in [link to thread] and [link to thread]," followed by more disjointed discussion in yet another related thread.

    One more thing. When members see that topics in which they've expressed interest are continuing to be the focus of discussions on WHT, you're promoting quality discussion. Yesterday, I saw an old friend and exceptionally valuable, productive member of days-gone-by come back because an old thread of interest was revived. He would never have known that discussions relevant to an area of interest to him were taking place if it were not for the proper use of an original thread to continue a discussion.

    **********

    There is no hard-and-fast rule about this amongst the moderators, and we're not looking to create some sort of moderating mandate. This is purely for a little direction from the community to make moderating decisions a little clearer. Ultimately, we're tasked with using our judgment in any given situation. If you're not in agreement with my points and you vote in this manner, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could briefly elaborate on your voting decision.

    Thanks for reading and for expressing your opinions as I've done mine.
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,231
    One other quick note. I purposely left out any definition of what makes a thread "old," because my contention is that if it makes sense to revive a thread from two weeks ago, it should be ok to revive it, and if it makes sense to revive a discussion from four years ago, it should be revived. I'm saying relevancy supercedes any age limit on a discussion.
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,178
    Most of what bothers me about those threads is the relavance of them. I mind a little of a three year old thread is dug up for a single reply if the thread is several pages long. I'm slightly amused when people respond to the OP who probably hasn't visited WHT for years . But the ones I report are what I'd consider off-topic.

    Poster #1 (1/1/2003): Is superdandyhost.com good?
    Poster #2 (1/2/2003): I heard they're OK, reasonably priced
    Poster #3 (1/2/2003): Or try hostrocks.com
    (Several more posts like this over a couple days)
    Poster #25 (today): OMG hostrocks.com totally sucks, they wouldn't give me a refund don't host with them!!!!111oneoneone

    See what I mean, not on topic. After I report these the mods either split the post into a new thread or toss the last post and lock the thread.

    If I'm going to bring back a thread older than say a month, even if I'm still on-topic, I make a new thread and link to the old. Then I summarize the old thread. If somebody is bored (like I must be right now ), they'll click the link and read the old thread.
    If you have to operate your company behind the scenes or under a fake name, maybe it's time to leave the industry and start something fresh.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,231
    Originally posted by CTG
    Most of what bothers me about those threads is the relavance of them. I mind a little of a three year old thread is dug up for a single reply if the thread is several pages long. I'm slightly amused when people respond to the OP who probably hasn't visited WHT for years . But the ones I report are what I'd consider off-topic.

    Poster #1 (1/1/2003): Is superdandyhost.com good?
    Poster #2 (1/2/2003): I heard they're OK, reasonably priced
    Poster #3 (1/2/2003): Or try hostrocks.com
    (Several more posts like this over a couple days)
    Poster #25 (today): OMG hostrocks.com totally sucks, they wouldn't give me a refund don't host with them!!!!111oneoneone

    See what I mean, not on topic. After I report these the mods either split the post into a new thread or toss the last post and lock the thread.

    If I'm going to bring back a thread older than say a month, even if I'm still on-topic, I make a new thread and link to the old. Then I summarize the old thread. If somebody is bored (like I must be right now ), they'll click the link and read the old thread.
    I absolutely, totally agree! But keep in mind, these are often moderated and deleted regardless of the age of the thread. There is a rule about useless posts, and we try to keep them to a minimum. I think this is a different topic from old tread revival, and please don't stop reporting these posts, no matter how old or new the thread might be!
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,231
    If I'm going to bring back a thread older than say a month, even if I'm still on-topic, I make a new thread and link to the old. Then I summarize the old thread. If somebody is bored (like I must be right now , they'll click the link and read the old thread.
    Why all that extra work for posters/readers when there's a button next to every thread with a new post that automatically takes you to the current post in the thread? Then, people can shuttle through the thread and read it as they want without opening multiple browser windows to do it. Plus, after this has been done four, five, even six times, you have quite a mess to unravel, which may deter from otherwise interesting and relevant discussion.

    Is the pursuit of one thread/topic not a good one? It's impractical to believe it can be easily achieved, but is it not worthy of pursuit regardless?

    This first started to make sense to me after watching the Steam Forums Posting and You movie. It's funny as all hell, but it also contains some pretty good advice, especially the part about it always being a better idea to post in an existing thread than to open a new one.
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    North of some border
    Posts
    5,613
    I couldn't vote in the poll because my vote is "It depends."

    Like CTG, I don't think it's a good idea to revive old threads about hosts or other service providers. Perhaps there were complaints a few months or years ago that may or may not have been valid. It isn't fair to saddle the host with complaints that can be found in the archives, but which aren't relevant to the host's service now. A lot could have changed, including but not only the ownership. And some readers won't notice that the posts are old.

    Similarly, a positive thread about a host has its place in the archives, but if people want to read about that host now, they want to read current posts.

    Most of the old threads that I see revived are in one of these categories:

    - Someone wants to complain about a host, digs up an old thread (positive or negative), and tacks on a complaint.
    - Someone is posting fluff posts to build up a post count to be able to post in the ad forums.

    If a thread is revived that doesn't fit in the above categories, if the details in the old thread are still relevant, if the thread isn't so long that it's hard to read, and if meaningful discussion is added, then I think we should let the thread stay revived.

    Lois
    "Do what you can, where you are, with what you have." – Theodore Roosevelt

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,231
    I'm of two schools of thought when it comes to the issue of old host reviews.

    A part of me says it makes sense to lock a review thread once discussion has been exhausted, and that this thread represents a glimpse into the performance of a host during a fixed period of time, searchable, quotable, but not revivable.

    Another part of me says if a complaint is not valid and is shown not to be so, it ought to be locked anyway, and if a complain is valid, there's nothing wrong with keeping the historical documentation of the host's growth intact from a customer perspective.

    But I tend to lean toward my first side more. If a thread/topic is exhausted, it should be identified as such and should be sealed, and the sort of thread that would qualify for this treatment would be one of these.

    Any thread which has been sealed cannot be revived, so I'd exclude those from this vote as well, but with the understanding that sealing them would be common practice, prompted by WHT members (or other mods) and at the discretion of the responding moderator.

    Someone wants to complain about a host, digs up an old thread (positive or negative), and tacks on a complaint.
    Now that I think about it, when a complaint is made, that complaint becomes the topic of the thread, and if it remained open and someone revived it stating that particular issue was still a problem, I'd say the revival was proper. If it's a different issue, and the only similarity is that the hosting company is the same, then it should be in a new thread. So, I'd still make the argument it's (almost) always better to allow a revival than to start a new thread, so long as the topic is the same and the information itself is valid.

    Someone is posting fluff posts to build up a post count to be able to post in the ad forums.
    Those should be tossed, regardless of thread age. I'm treating that as a completely separate issue.
    Last edited by the_pm; 08-31-2005 at 04:38 PM.
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    2,132
    In my opinion (and as you guys have already explained), there is a fine line between pulling up old threads with one liners or agreements or disagreements to what has already been posted in the thread and contributing a new idea or relevant opinion to the thread.
    I say it is up to the moderators to distinguish what is a one-liner and what isn't.

    Jord

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    3,302
    I find it pretty annoying to happen upon very old threads that have been revived for a senseless post. I think a large part of the problem is that many people do not realize how old a thread is. It's pretty easy to start reading a thread and post a quick reply without ever having realized when the thread was started.

    Perhaps WHT could be modded so that the post date could be more obvious if the post date is more than X months old. A gradient or mix of tatics could be used, anything from making the date bold on 3+ month old posts, to bigger / bold / red on posts that are greater than 12+ months old.
    Jay Sudowski // Handy Networks LLC // Co-Founder & CTO
    AS30475 - Level(3), HE, Telia, XO and Cogent. Noction optimized network.
    Offering Dedicated Server and Colocation Hosting from our SSAE 16 SOC 2, Type 2 Certified Data Center.
    Current specials here. Check them out.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,231
    Oy.

    Ok, for the last time, please read the poll question - Is it ok to revive old threads with discussion related to the original topic?

    Yes, senseless posts = bad. They should be killed when they appear in old threads. They should be killed when they appear in newer threads.

    But legitimate continuation of an old discussion - start new thread, or allow this to take place in the original discussion thread?

    I'm totally fine with people responding that this is not ok, I just want to be very clear as to what is being asked here, so that the answers aren't reflecting a separate issue.
    Last edited by the_pm; 08-31-2005 at 10:52 PM.
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Western Canada
    Posts
    1,889
    To be honest, regardless of the post content (even if it's 100% on topic), it really bugs the heck out of me when people bring back old threads.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    3,302
    Originally posted by westcan
    To be honest, regardless of the post content (even if it's 100% on topic), it really bugs the heck out of me when people bring back old threads.
    Yes ... me too. Hence the suggestion about making the date more obvious on older threads.
    Jay Sudowski // Handy Networks LLC // Co-Founder & CTO
    AS30475 - Level(3), HE, Telia, XO and Cogent. Noction optimized network.
    Offering Dedicated Server and Colocation Hosting from our SSAE 16 SOC 2, Type 2 Certified Data Center.
    Current specials here. Check them out.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,231
    Ok, that's cool. Thanks for putting it in the right context
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Oxford, England, UK
    Posts
    828
    Originally posted by the_pm
    Oy.

    Ok, for the last time, please read the poll question - Is it ok to revive old threads with discussion related to the original topic?

    Yes, senseless posts = bad. They should be killed when they appear in old threads. They should be killed when they appear in newer threads.

    But legitimate continuation of an old discussion - start new thread, or allow this to take place in the original discussion thread?

    I'm totally fine with people responding that this is not ok, I just want to be very clear as to what is being asked here, so that the answers aren't reflecting a separate issue.
    I'll vote YES only if people who revive old threads for a pointless discussion get banned from WHT with no warning

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    chica go go
    Posts
    11,876
    If a review, or request for opinions of a host is posted in december, and some new member comes around in july to post their review of the host in every thread he can find about that host; that's bad.

    why can't a new thread just be posted? I'm totally in favor of a 2 month auto-lock on threads.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    13,624
    I always try to keep my threads all in one place....So if i have something to add to a post i started 2 yrs ago,I USUALLY ADD TO IT instead of starting a new one (Its stupid.....'Reposts' are frowned upon after all)

    Tinyurl is the answer for posting long urls!!!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ellesmere Port, Wirral, UK
    Posts
    1,540
    Your forgetting that alot of the time, Its a mistake.

    I have done it myself, I will have searched for something and be looking at various threads, and if I get interested in a big thread, I forget I have searched and end up posting in it, therefore bringing back an old thread!
    BTi-Hosting.co.uk High quality hosting, low low prices.
    One step ahead of the competition - Today IS tomorrow.
    FraudWise.Net - Fight the fraud!

  18. #18
    Originally posted by westcan
    To be honest, regardless of the post content (even if it's 100% on topic), it really bugs the heck out of me when people bring back old threads.
    I find this funny, because some of you are the same people who keep telling others to do a search & post in the original thread if that person makes a topic about something that already exists.

    You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    North of some border
    Posts
    5,613
    Originally posted by Shaliza
    I find this funny, because some of you are the same people who keep telling others to do a search & post in the original thread if that person makes a topic about something that already exists.

    You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind.
    Generally speaking, when people suggest doing a search and posting in the original thread, they're doing so because there's already a current thread on the same topic.

    Other times, the suggestion to do a search is just to look for answers to questions.

    Lois
    "Do what you can, where you are, with what you have." – Theodore Roosevelt

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,027
    Originally posted by writespeak
    . . . Other times, the suggestion to do a search is just to look for answers to questions.
    Can you show me some say 12 specific instances where folks have been told to search, also told not to post in those searched threads?

    You can't reasonably expect folks just to search, and not interact with the threads they're searching through. It's basic human nature for them to interact, and post into some of those threads that they search through. Time and time again folks are told to use the search button, and then the same folks complain when old threads are dug up, as a result of someone searching and posting into an old thread.

    I don't like reading through old threads. I'm now getting into the habit of checking the date, on the thread, to make sure it's current. Nothing worse than reading a thread for 5 minutes, only to discover it's 3 years old.
    WLVPN.com NetProtect owned White Label VPN provider
    Increase your hosting profits by adding VPN to your product line up

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    North of some border
    Posts
    5,613
    Originally posted by Aussie Bob
    Can you show me some say 12 specific instances where folks have been told to search, also told not to post in those searched threads?

    You can't reasonably expect folks just to search, and not interact with the threads they're searching through.
    Maybe. OTOH, if the poster is just looking for answers to questions, perhaps no interaction is anticipated. I often use this forum to search for information without even thinking about posting in the threads I find.

    . Nothing worse than reading a thread for 5 minutes, only to discover it's 3 years old.
    I know what you mean, and IMO this is why a lot of people don't like it when old threads resurface for any reason.

    Lois
    "Do what you can, where you are, with what you have." – Theodore Roosevelt

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,027
    Originally posted by writespeak
    Maybe. OTOH, if the poster is just looking for answers to questions, perhaps no interaction is anticipated. I often use this forum to search for information without even thinking about posting in the threads I find.
    I've nearly done it myself. I occassionaly search and get caught up in a thread, and forget it's an old thread, and go to post into it - then remember it's old.

    It happens. I'm getting old.
    WLVPN.com NetProtect owned White Label VPN provider
    Increase your hosting profits by adding VPN to your product line up

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    45
    Personally I don't mind a a thread is "old" - there's alot of pertinent discussion in many "old" threads. And in reading through them, I am inspired with my own questions & comments - sometimes VERY helpful subjects are brought out, and I believe I am entitled to post these subjects even if the thread is "old". If someone doesn't want to subscribe to and "old" thread - then don't.
    As always,
    My 2 cents.

  24. #24
    ^^^ agreed..

    If a new member comes along with a relevant comment or some
    additional information on an old subject why shouldnt they
    respond to the thread? The threads may be old to veteran
    posters however they are all new to newcomers here.

    Frankly I tend not to look at the "date" of a thread. If you're
    browsing or searching for certain criteria you're bound to get all
    sorts of thread ages.

    Shouldnt be an issue if its all relevant to the subject as it
    generates discussion which is the point of all this no?


  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Kalamazoo
    Posts
    33,412
    Originally posted by writespeak
    ...
    Nothing worse than reading a thread for 5 minutes, only to discover it's 3 years old.

    I know what you mean, and IMO this is why a lot of people don't like it when old threads resurface for any reason.

    Lois
    That seems to be the reason for the majority.

    But, still, I have to wonder why it matters how old the thread is, if the newer information posted is relevant to the discussion.
    There is no best host. There is only the host that's best for you.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •