New Thread Etiquette (start new thread, or post in dusty old thread?)

miles · Dec 22, 2008

Before I start a thread on a certain topic, I usually do a search.

Often I want to add something to a resulting thread that shows up. However, these threads are sometimes years old.

So, what's the etiquette for threads here? Should I revive a two-year-old thread directly relating to the topic I want to discuss, or just start a new thread?

jvc · Dec 22, 2008

I don't see a problem reviving an old thread. It does save on duplication if nothing else

.

L M Ashton · Dec 22, 2008

I second JVC. Plus it makes it easier for the next person searching on the same topic - s/he only has to open one thread instead of fifteen.

dpaterso · Dec 22, 2008

Just giving my opinion here. I've nothing against this either, especially if the topic is still relevant or if it's an ongoing technical question.

But best check when the posters in the old thread last visited the board (click on any username and View Public Profile... see "Last Activity"). If they're not regular visitors any more, trying to engage them in debate by quoting stuff they said years ago makes little sense.

Also, you might want to make it clear that you've revived an old thread, so members aren't fooled into thinking this is a current, "live" conversation. Whenever I see this happening, sometimes I'll add an awareness warning.

-Derek

Beach Bunny · Dec 23, 2008

This is just my personal opinion. Reviving a two year old thread confuses people. Regardless of whether someone states that it is a revived old thread or not, people will read the first post, then write a reply without reading through the rest or going to the end and reading the most current. Or people respond to comments made two years ago, not realizing that the poster is no longer around. I've caught myself before doing that a time or two and I feel stupid everytime it happens. (I'd like to remain blissfully unaware of the number of times I haven't done it.) Many times, I won't join a revived discussion because of this.

People around here have a short attention span. If the thread is more than three or four months old and the question hasn't been raised a bunch of times before, then go ahead and start a new thread. It's the questions that get asked over and over and over and over again which provokes people into posting "Use the search tool."

EDITED TO ADD: I was just sharing my experience as peon. Listen to the mods.

Ol' Fashioned Girl · Dec 23, 2008

Three Mods have given the opinion - which I share, so make it four - that it's okay to resurrect an old thread. It saves us having to merge the new with the old, which is what I'll do if I find them in areas under my span of control.

Beach Bunny · Dec 23, 2008

Ol' Fashioned Girl said:
Three Mods have given the opinion - which I share, so make it four - that it's okay to resurrect an old thread. It saves us having to merge the new with the old, which is what I'll do if I find them in areas under my span of control.

I know you do that with fairly recent threads. but, do you all go back and find a thread that is six months old or older to merge the new thread into?

Birol · Dec 23, 2008

Sometimes. Depends on the topic and the mod. For example, there are days when I'm tempted to go through Novels and merge all the threads I can find about Outlining: To Do or Not To Do, as well as the other evergreen topics that are often covered there. I haven't. Yet.

dpaterso · Dec 23, 2008

That's at the bottom of the Effort vs. Reward curve.

-Derek

Birol · Dec 23, 2008

Yeah. Precisely. Which is why I haven't done it, but there may come a day when I'm procrastinating on everything else and it seems like an infinitely more valuable and rewarding thing to do.

Ol' Fashioned Girl · Dec 23, 2008

In OP, I do. If a thread reminds me of one from The Olden Days, yes. I've done it more than once. Like Birol, if there were multiple discussions of anything, I'd tidy 'em up into one.

CaoPaux · Dec 23, 2008

Beach Bunny said:
I know you do that with fairly recent threads. but, do you all go back and find a thread that is six months old or older to merge the new thread into?

Yes.

dclary · Dec 23, 2008

What if we're bumping year+ old threads because one of the posters involved in the old thread was, well, uh, otherwise incapable of responding at the time?

:2angel:

dpaterso · Dec 23, 2008

dclary said:
What if we're bumping year+ old threads because one of the posters involved in the old thread was, well, uh, otherwise incapable of responding at the time?

One can barely imagine how incredibly interesting and topical these threads must be!

-Derek

Pamster · Dec 23, 2008

Some boards I have been to call it necroposting and really get irate when old threads are bumped, but here I can totally see it's more important that good information not get lost and if you post to and old thread that it's not a cardinal sin! WOOO HOO for AW!

Beach Bunny · Dec 23, 2008

Birol said:
Sometimes. Depends on the topic and the mod. For example, there are days when I'm tempted to go through Novels and merge all the threads I can find about Outlining: To Do or Not To Do, as well as the other evergreen topics that are often covered there. I haven't. Yet.

THAT would be a full-time job.

MacAllister · Dec 26, 2008

Beach Bunny said:
THAT would be a full-time job.

It sort of varies, from forum to forum, usually. Bewares and Background Check, frex, is a forum where we actively encourage people to look for old threads, and actively combine threads as new ones are started, so we don't have fifteen or twenty threads on whatever sketchy company people are looking for information about.

But on the other hand, if we combined every "Passive Voice" thread in every forum, I'd have to build an entire subforum just to hold the responses . . .

Beach Bunny · Dec 26, 2008

If I am understanding you correctly (always an iffy situation), basically it depends on the forum, the moderator, and the question asked. There's no one size fits all answer.

L M Ashton · Dec 26, 2008

In the blogging forum, resurrect and revive. I tend to merge threads that are all on the same topic anyway, so it saves me time.

Birol · Dec 26, 2008

Beach Bunny said:
If I am understanding you correctly (always an iffy situation), basically it depends on the forum, the moderator, and the question asked. There's no one size fits all answer.

Yes.

dpaterso · Dec 26, 2008

I don't mind merging simple question-and-answer threads with similar content. But if there are worthy conversations running concurrently (with similar date/time stamps), merging can break up the flow something awful, especially if members haven't quoted posts they're replying to. So sometimes I don't do it.

...Then of course I'll forget, and merge them a month later :e2smack:

or discover that someone else has merged them. :e2smack:

-Derek

Deleted member 42 · Dec 26, 2008

MacAllister said:
But on the other hand, if we combined every "Passive Voice" thread in every forum, I'd have to build an entire subforum just to hold the responses . . .

Yes! Yes! COMBINE THEM ALL!!!!!

Then password protect the Passive Voice sub-forum.

Kthnxbai.

Ken · Dec 26, 2008

I had a question about sub'ing to the New Yorker and ressurrected an ancient thread that hadn't had any posts for 14 months. Got my question answered w/o having to start a new one:

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56949&highlight=new+yorker&page=4

Initially, though, I settled on the wrong thread to revive, about a member who had got something pub'd in the New Yorker 2 years back, resulting in many members giving them congrats. So one has to be selective in which thread to revive or else confusion can, indeed, result.

New Thread Etiquette (start new thread, or post in dusty old thread?)

agent at The Knight Agency

Fearsome Dragon Mod

crazy spec fic writer

Patent pending

The Provocative One

Hand? What hand?

The Provocative One

Around and About

Patent pending

Around and About

Hand? What hand?

Mostly Harmless

Unabashed Mercenary

Patent pending

Counting Stars

The Provocative One

Tired and worried.

The Provocative One

crazy spec fic writer

Around and About

Patent pending

Deleted member 42