Old Threads Being Resurrected

Lakesailor

Lakesailor

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 Feb 2005
Messages
35,236
Location
Near Here
Visit site
I've noticed several very old threads re-appearing.
Very annoying when you realise you have joined in a discussion about something which is has long ceased to be a concern for the Original Poster.

I shall have to start reading the OP dates before joining in any more.
 
Yep, agree, found myself replying to one the other day, sense of déjà vu and discovered I'd responded to the thread four years earlier.

Much better to start a new thread as best practise changes as do links and prices.

Mind you when we're on a hobby horse, I wish some OPs would close off a thread with an indication of what they eventually did and whether it worked.
 
Vara said:
Yep, agree, found myself replying to one the other day, sense of déjà vu and discovered I'd responded to the thread four years earlier.

Much better to start a new thread as best practise changes as do links and prices.

Mind you when we're on a hobby horse, I wish some OPs would close off a thread with an indication of what they eventually did and whether it worked.
Click to expand...

Seconded
 
OTOH, if one asks a question that has already been asked before it is not unusual to receive a comment on the lines of 'Why don't you use the search facility?'
 
Lakesailor said:
I shall have to start reading the OP dates before joining in any more.
Click to expand...

If you visit the forum as often as some of us do (your good self included :) ) then the threads from beyond the grave are usually obvious. Apart from certain contentious subjects, a thread is unlikely to go from nowhere to 100+ posts in a matter of hours - so if it wasn't there this morning and it's now ginormous, then either it's about gay marriage or religion, or it's been resurrected from years past :)

Pete
 
PuffTheMagicDragon said:
OTOH, if one asks a question that has already been asked before it is not unusual to receive a comment on the lines of 'Why don't you use the search facility?'
Click to expand...
Different point. Having found an old thread and digested it, it is still pointless to answer that thread. Some of these are 6 and 7 years old. The rate people flounce of in a huff the OPs are probably no longer on here. Or, in fact, here at all.

prv said:
If you visit the forum as often as some of us do (your good self included :) ) then the threads from beyond the grave are usually obvious. Apart from certain contentious subjects, a thread is unlikely to go from nowhere to 100+ posts in a matter of hours - so if it wasn't there this morning and it's now ginormous, then either it's about gay marriage or religion, or it's been resurrected from years past :)

Pete
Click to expand...
Can't be arsed to analyse the stats of every thread before reading or contributing.
 
nigelmercier said:
Indeed it is, very annoying indeed. The correct way IMO is to start a new thread and back reference to old one...
Click to expand...

An exception to this is where the OP of the thread is giving an update, in this case I think the resurrection is justified. There is one such thread at the moment, so it makes the practice even more annoying.
 
Lakesailor said:
Can't be arsed to analyse the stats of every thread before reading or contributing.
Click to expand...

I certainly don't mean a deliberate analysis of the thing - what would be the point when the date's displayed already? I just mean that a sudden appearance of a large thread out of nowhere acts - for me at least - as a subconscious trigger to check when it was started.

Pete
 
nigelmercier said:
An exception to this is where the OP of the thread is giving an update, in this case I think the resurrection is justified. There is one such thread at the moment, so it makes the practice even more annoying.
Click to expand...
The ideal is to start an "Update on xxxx" thread and link back to the original.

Except, of course, that people pile in without reading the old thread and cover the ground all over again making suggestions that are time-elapsed in their usefulness.
 
prv said:
I certainly don't mean a deliberate analysis of the thing - what would be the point when the date's displayed already? I just mean that a sudden appearance of a large thread out of nowhere acts - for me at least - as a subconscious trigger to check when it was started.

Pete
Click to expand...

I doubt if LS is the only one who does not check the number of replies and/or the date of the first post as you do before opening a thread with an interesting title.

Even more annoying than discovering that it is an old thread you already replied to is now disagreeing with what you said previously :(


FWIW one of the forums I use from time to time has the following rule.

12. Please do not post to threads that have been inactive for more than 3 months UN-LESS you are the original poster. We have very active forums and any thread that remains inactive for that long should be considered "dead". It is especially confusing when there is an entirely new question posted to an old thread. This is considered a hijack. Please start a new thread of your own.
Click to expand...

Being a fairly vigorously controlled forum posts which flout this rule are likely to be deleted by the administrators.
 
I am afraid that I have also been guilty of this heinous crime, grovel grovel. My excuse is that I do not possess the obviously encyclopaedic memory of most forumites such that I fail to recognise the thread title as dating back a few years. I freely admit that I do not always notice the start date. Result being that I see a thread that might be interesting, read the posts that are "unread" and then if I feel moved may add my two-pennorth.

AFAIK I have not personally resurrected an old thread, but have posted in a few.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top