Old threads

[DC_DEEP]

There seems to be a little imbalance between the "why did you resurrect this old thread" and the "there have been several threads about that, please use the search function."

If I may offer a bit of a guideline: if you have questions or comments about general topics, first do a search for pertinent threads. If you find thread(s), have a closer look at the opening post in that thread. When was it posted, and was it a member-specific topic (like "am I gay" or "I have a relationship problem, help me please") then it probably should not be revived, especially if it is several years old.

If, on the other hand, it is a broader post (such as "what is the meaning of life" or "can a person be both gay and republican") then it possibly could be revived rather than starting a new thread on an old topic.

If you cannot find the subject you searched, in any threads (old or recent) then you should start a new thread.

Does anyone else agree?

 

[novice_btm]

I can't believe that you started a new thread on this, when there are countless others already out there that you would've found, had you used the "search" function. :biggrin1:

But seriously... I've asked this same basic question, many times. That is, I've asked, "WELL? Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Should people search, only to be bullied for reviving an old thread, or should they start a new one, only to be scolded for not searching?".

I agree with you. There are threads that obviously shouldn't be revived, like when the question was posed literally years ago, hasn't had activity in just about as much time, the original poster is now listed as "Guest", etc. In these cases, new threads should be formed.

However, as you stated, there are topics that are still relevant, and absolutely exact in their focus, such as when Alex8 gave the example about celebs, that don't need duplication. There's no need to create a new thread on, and definitely not just a week later (or in some cases, a minute later, in a different forum), a topic that is identical.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

I've had less luck finding old threads using the search feature lately than I used to. Not sure why.

 

[shad24]

iI have not been here as long as alot of lifers. but I have noticed lately that some of you responses have always been the same thing. "Use the search" and more often than not it is not said in a nice way!
As far as I can see there's not a whole lot that has not been dicussed here before. Go ahead try and find a subject thats new.
Why not just change this place to a "search" forum and not have any real discussions?
Yah yeah yeah I know it has been discussed here before in 2001

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Shad I think you're missing the point. Just because something has been discussed before doesn't mean that there's nothing else to be said about a topic. But if people would use the search feature, it would mean that everything that had been said could be added upon, and all the relevant discussion would be in the same place. What's the point of having 15 different threads that start out "hey, did you guys hear that Harry Potter is nude in Equus?" Wouldn't having one suffice?
If someone posts something that has been discussed before literally dozens of time... then old-timers do get tired of seeing the same thing popping up again and again. Or if someone starts a new thread on a fairly unique topic that has been discussed only once or twice before, then finding the older thread should be relatively easy. In either case, not even making the effort before starting a new redundant thread demonstrates laziness.

 

[novice_btm]

I've had less luck finding old threads using the search feature lately than I used to. Not sure why.

The search function is probably too heavily laden with wading through all of the "Is my dick big?" threads, to ever arrive at the thread you're looking for. :tongue:

 

[kalipygian]

I havent tried to tell anyone that they should not start a new thread, or revive an old one.
I have tried to direct people who bring up something that has been recently discussed, or have a question that has been answered before, to that thread.

They can then read what has already been gone over, and continue discussion from that point. There are some old threads with some excellent discussion, which might not be repeated. Some people might not feel like answering again an old question from a new person.

Besides the Harry Potter threads, (I thought there had only been 13:tongue there have in the past few days been duplicate threads on using chemical depilitories.

There is a better chance of good discussion if we are all posting on the same thread.

Improving the search function has been brought up In the owner's be part of the solution thread.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

I don't mind seeing old threads dredged back up to the top if new information makes them relevant again. This happens alot with politically related threads as circumstances ebb and flow. There've been a few times when I've revived old threads just to make a point as new information becomes available. The Plame/Libby thread was a good example.

 

[SteveHd]

A thought I've had in the back of my mind is putting an expiration time, say one year, on threads. If there's no new posts after that time, vBulletin closes it. I don't know if vBulletin has such a feature and doing that manually would be too much of a hassle.

 

[dreamer20]

I can't believe that you started a new thread on this, when there are countless others already out there that you would've found, had you used the "search" function. :biggrin1:

LOL

 

[sbeBen]

I can never find old threads and have to rely on subscribing so I don't lose them. I really don't care if things have been discussed before!!! What does it matter? There are loads of new members who have never read these threads from months or even years ago.

Some sad people just seem to love reporting that "this is an old thread!" or "this has been discussed 4yrs ago".

If you want to discuss something then you will get nagged at if you resurect an old thread and then if you start a new thread they have a go at you for bringing up an old subject.

What's the big deal?

Old timers don't have to look at the threads if they don't want to.

 

[agnslz]

The problem I have with people starting redundant threads is that they don't even make an effort to look to see if it may have been discussed before. And I'm not just talking about people starting threads about the same thing that was discussed a few weeks, or even months ago, but threads started about things that were already brought up mere days before that often can be found barely on the second or third page of older threads in a forum. This irritates me. And it is especially so in the Celebrity Endowments forum. Does anyone out there truly believe there hasn't already been a thread about Mike Rowe, Mario Lopez, Bear Grylls, or Colin Farrell's sex tape? Once again, I don't see how hard is it to search first, or at least look at the first few pages of threads in a forum to see if there isn't already a similar thread like the one you want to start.