what's the correct etiquette regarding old threads

[morroben]

I've noticed lately that when an old thread is dug up, a mod usually says something about it. I guess I can understand if it's an outdated topic, but today's subject was "tips for playing in a trio". Seems like it would still be a relevant thread.
Anyway, where's the line in the sand between "this thread is old and dead" and "learn to use the search function"? Is there something like a 6 month rule? This is the only forum I've ever spent any time around so I don't know if there's an internet wide protocol on that kind of thing.

[TheBlueNote]

Here's an idea...what if there was a new section of the forum where if you reply on a thread that is a year or older, the thread will automatically show up there? Might be a lot of work to do it, though.

[ibobunot]

Start a new thread about the same subject you've already read the old one...

[morroben]

Originally Posted by ibobunot

Start a new thread about the same subject you've already read the old one...

Then you get comments telling you to use the search function.

[Groovey Records]

Part of it is you may be replyig to or giving your opinion to someone who has moved on years ago.

That said.

Some threads are informative and stand the test of time in a historical context.

For example a thread on Steve Cropper or James Burton, Roy Buchanan style and rigs or Guitars will stand the test of time

Chet Atkins

[BritishBluesBoy]

Ignore the comments. If you feel your opinion or question is relevant then post away. It's only an internet forum after all, not like carving something in stone...

[stevieboy]

I think sometimes when it happens the person, who is often new here, doesn't even realize it's an old thread, they did a search and it came up.

I don't really have a problem with it, but I do find it disconcerting sometimes when suddenly I come on a post by a member who imploded off the board, one who has passed away, or most disturbing, a reply that I made years ago.

Of course sometimes the topics or specific threads are ones that I can understand the mods not wanting to see dredged up, but in general I don't think it's bad. Why should we feel bad about or want to forget our illustrious past? But maybe if there was some way a red flag of some sort existed where we could automatically see when a thread's last post was a while ago, it would put it in that perspective.

[neocaster]

Nothing wrong with resurrecting a relevant thread. Reply to it if you think the previous posts lend to the discourse. Link to it if you merely want to indicate you've read it and found it relevant. If it was a particularly controversial thread, consider that when you decide whether or not to unearth it. If you resurrect it, comment right at the start that you were searching, found this, and dragged it out to the light of day. It reminds people to look at the timeline when reading/replying to the post.

All just suggestions. In the end, do what you will.

[TDPRI]

Don't listen to anyone but the mods that tell you not to post in old threads. When we see posts in old threads 9 times out of 10 we'll either delete the new posts to let the old thread sink back down or will split off any new posts into a new thread.

The more people post in old threads the more work it makes for us.

There are many of problems with posting in old threads:

1. Many of the members are no longer current.
2. Some of the members may even be dead
3. No one notices the old date and many times this effects the responses and routinely causes us problems
4. Everyone that posted in the old thread that signed up for emails suddenly gets a bunch of emails from the thread -- even if they're banned, no longer a member, or dead.

It doesn't happen very often, so we haven't taken more drastic actions. But if it does we will take steps to lock all old threads to prevent someone from posting in them.

[ibobunot]

Originally Posted by morroben

Then you get comments telling you to use the search function.

Tell them you've already read the old threads and want some fresh viewpoints.


Or alternately just tell them to stuff it... dang do-a-search ****s...

[Tim Armstrong]

Originally Posted by morroben

Anyway, where's the line in the sand between "this thread is old and dead" and "learn to use the search function"? Is there something like a 6 month rule?

We don't have a hard and fast rule on this (that I know of, anyway!), but I'd say six months to a year, depending on what kind of thread it is.

I think of threads as being like conversations, and a response several months (or several years) later is kind of like walking up to someone and picking up an old conversation exactly where it left off, without even a "remember when we were talking about..." to wind things back up...

Tim

[stevieboy]

Originally Posted by Tim Armstrong

... kind of like walking up to someone and picking up an old conversation exactly where it left off, without even a "remember when we were talking about..." to wind things back up...

Tim

You've met my wife, I see.

[TDPRI]

Seems like when I see people posting on threads 5 and 6 years old I see names of folks that have died, or left us.

I've even seen a 4 year old thread renewed and folks all jumped in to welcome back a long lost member that hadn't returned. It was just an old thread.

Everyone expects the threads in the New Posts section and on the front index page to be new not from 2005 or 2007. And, they treat the threads the see accordingly.

[buddywayne]

Buckocaster has a really old thread and people are still posting on it. HeeHee!

[woodman]

Bucko's thread never really died, though ... i.e., it never got buried deep enough to croak. it's been fairly continuous IIRC.

[Big John]

Has this become more common since the 'similar threads' list has appeared at the bottom of threads ?, I have often clicked on these and then realised 'hang on, this is 4 years old' -- I think it's a neat function, when you are looking for information on a subject to find extra stuff but would it be possible to disallow posting on threads in that list ?

Just a thought, I do realise you aren't sitting about doing nothing !

[openbar]

Just saw one revived the other day from 5 years ago. I agree with those that think there should be a limit.

[Stuco]

Dig up old threads if need be, no problem.

[TDPRI]

Originally Posted by Stuco

Dig up old threads if need be, no problem.

As I've said many times. The above ^ is not true and should NOT be heeded.

[TDPRI]

Due to people abusing this I'm going to install software to prevent such posting. I had hoped to not need to, but it's obvious that my "hope" is not realistic.

[Groovey Records]

Originally Posted by Big John

Has this become more common since the 'similar threads' list has appeared at the bottom of threads ?, I have often clicked on these and then realised 'hang on, this is 4 years old' -- I think it's a neat function, when you are looking for information on a subject to find extra stuff but would it be possible to disallow posting on threads in that list ?

Just a thought, I do realise you aren't sitting about doing nothing !

I've was bit by that list too

it's a two edged sword, good for research but sometimes very outdated info


getting rid of that feature would go a long way to easing the problem

[openbar]

And let's face it - if there were only one thread for steel vs. brass, poly vs. nitro, etc, we would run out of things to talk about!

[morroben]

Originally Posted by TDPRI

Due to people abusing this I'm going to install software to prevent such posting. I had hoped to not need to, but it's obvious that my "hope" is not realistic.

FWIW, I don't have any problem avoiding the old threads. I just wanted to make sure that was what we were supposed to do. Not complaining about the idea, just trying to be clear about the protocol. Figured that rather than assume I would just ask.

[neocaster]

Originally Posted by morroben

FWIW, I don't have any problem avoiding the old threads. I just wanted to make sure that was what we were supposed to do. Not complaining about the idea, just trying to be clear about the protocol. Figured that rather than assume I would just ask.

After reading Paul's original answer, it seems like the best route would be a new thread with links and/or quotes from the stale one. I never realized it was an issue, so thanks for bringing it up. I learned something.

[The Bone]

just out of curiosity, does the software that the forum is tied to have an way to automatically delete threads over a certain age?

[SimpleOne]

Originally Posted by The Bone

just out of curiosity, does the software that the forum is tied to have an way to automatically delete threads over a certain age?

I would think too much good info and memories from those who have left or passed would be lost.

One of the wonders of this forum, for me, is the ability to look back at the earlier posts and get a feeling for the culture that exists here. Some have left but there thoughts and considerations remain, and I am thankful for that.

Seems like stopping the older threads (zombie) from being added to is OK.

We can always link or refer to older posts if we need to reference them, MHO.

[TDPRI]

We don't delete anything really. Ever.

[openbar]

I'm very glad you don't delete things BUT...over the past few days there seems to be a rash of 4 or 5 year-old threads being bumped.

I don't know how this software works, but another board I frequent doesn't allow old bumps. It's a strict 30 days, but I suppose 1 year would be fine for here. They don't delete stuff either, it just goes to the archives.

[TDPRI]

We've been looking at multiple solutions but haven't found one we like yet. Some are too light and other too strong. So, we're still working on the problem.