Dragging up a nine year old thread

Kazuma

"Dragging up a nine year old thread" - Admittedly mostly pointless, but exactly what's wrong with this?

seamus

Everything.

You don't drag up old threads. It's just not done. If the last post was more than a year ago, then you start a new thread. Otherwise you've got a tonne of content which is probably out of date, and everyone who originally posted in it has forgotten what they've said and will have to start again anyway.

You definitely don't drag up a thread to make a comment on something that someone said nine years ago.

Imagine one of your school teachers coming along and wanting to have a chat with you about the Irish test you took before the Halloween break in 1996?

Stark

Because I would gawk at posts made by my 17 year old self...

Kazuma

So mods don't like being reminded about their younger selves?

tallaght01

seamus wrote: »

Everything.

You don't drag up old threads. It's just not done. If the last post was more than a year ago, then you start a new thread. Otherwise you've got a tonne of content which is probably out of date, and everyone who originally posted in it has forgotten what they've said and will have to start again anyway.

You definitely don't drag up a thread to make a comment on something that someone said nine years ago.

Imagine one of your school teachers coming along and wanting to have a chat with you about the Irish test you took before the Halloween break in 1996?

It's a discussion board. That's what it is. If someone wants to comment on an old topic, why can't they? If no-one else wants to engage, the topic will die. "Just the way it is" thinking is very backward looking.

We should leave a lot more things alone, and let the dynamic of the message board take it's course, IMHO.

whiskeyman

I propose we drag up some lolkitten pics for this thread...

Boston

Why does tallaght1 always have to fight the established order? discuss.

Kazuma

If they involve digging up nine year olds, fire ahead =P

tallaght01

Boston wrote: »

Why does tallaght1 always have to fight the established order? discuss.

Coz it pisses you off. End of discussion.

seamus

tallaght01 wrote: »

It's a discussion board. That's what it is. If someone wants to comment on an old topic, why can't they? If no-one else wants to engage, the topic will die. "Just the way it is" thinking is very backward looking.

I'd ordinarily agree, but not on this one. It creates spam. That's it. The topic serves no purpose except to gather crap posts.

Some threads don't just die on their own, in particular threads which have been dragged up. Instead, they have twenty posts of people going, "OMG, old thread", another twenty not realising that it's an old thread and trying to argue with the OP when the OP is either long gone or long dead, and then another fifty random lol's and FFS's and "IBFL" and such.

Dragging up old posts wastes a monumental amount of time.

Will

I will get back to this in nine years, because it will prove a point.

Kazuma

seamus wrote: »

I'd ordinarily agree, but not on this one. It creates spam. That's it. The topic serves no purpose except to gather crap posts.

Some threads don't just die on their own, in particular threads which have been dragged up. Instead, they have twenty posts of people going, "OMG, old thread", another twenty not realising that it's an old thread and trying to argue with the OP when the OP is either long gone or long dead, and then another fifty random lol's and FFS's and "IBFL" and such.

Dragging up old posts wastes a monumental amount of time.

Whose time are you talking about?
If people want to post on it, it's their time to waste?
And if people are enjoying the thread, I don't think it's appropriate for you to call them crap.

Epic Tissue

seamus wrote: »

Some threads don't just die on their own, in particular threads which have been dragged up. Instead, they have twenty posts of people going, "OMG, old thread", another twenty not realising that it's an old thread and trying to argue with the OP when the OP is either long gone or long dead, and then another fifty random lol's and FFS's and "IBFL" and such.

Sounds awesome! and fits into AH nicely:pac:

Kazuma

Will wrote: »

I will get back to this in nine years, because it will prove a point.

Well I shall see you in 9 years then, Will, but I'm hoping my ban will have been lifted by then.

seamus

Kazuma wrote: »

Whose time are you talking about?
If people want to post on it, it's their time to waste?
And if people are enjoying the thread, I don't think it's appropriate for you to call them crap.

It wastes moderator's time, it wastes other people's time because they'll go in and read it and then realise it's crap.

People will enjoy the most mundane of things. Just because people are posting smiley faces and LOL's, doesn't exempt a thread from the "crap" label.

If it serves no purpose and has no discussion, it's crap and it's spam. There's only one forum where that's allowed on this site, and it's not AH.

Will

It's a 1 week ban, I'm sure you will survive.
Will reply again on the 29th of August 2017.

Kazuma

seamus wrote: »

It wastes moderator's time, it wastes other people's time because they'll go in and read it and then realise it's crap.

People will enjoy the most mundane of things. Just because people are posting smiley faces and LOL's, doesn't exempt a thread from the "crap" label.

If it serves no purpose and has no discussion, it's crap and it's spam. There's only one forum where that's allowed on this site, and it's not AH.

Can you tell me which it is? I'm...getting...urges.....

Sully

Didnt DeV already say that dragging up old topics with nothing constructive to add is pointless, and to start a new thread instead? I remember some of the deise folk complaining about that. I think.

tallaght01

I do see your point Seamus. I disagree with it. But I see where you're coming from. But, I think things should be let roll, and that if people want to discuss it, they should be allowed do it. I think we can disagree on that point civilly.

But I think banning someone for it is really dumb. Bannings should be for troublemakers. I don't know kazuma's history on here, but if that's all he/she has done, then a banning is a power trip, IMO.

Daithi McGee

Boston wrote: »

Why does tallaght1 always have to fight the established order? discuss.

To create the established order?

[pb]Say no to drugs kids. [/pb]

Kazuma

It is my first ban on boards, I don't even post that much, usually stay around the Nocturnal Forum.
A ban from After Hours doesn't bother me all that greatly, it would just be the fact that I received no warning, as I was under the impression that AH was a more passive forum.

Sully

tallaght01 wrote: »

I do see your point Seamus. I disagree with it. But I see where you're coming from. But, I think things should be let roll, and that if people want to discuss it, they should be allowed do it. I think we can disagree on that point civilly.

I absolutely hate it when someone drags up an old thread with absolutely nothing decent to add. Seriously. Its like replying to a new thread with absolute rubbish.

But I think banning someone for it is really dumb. Bannings should be for troublemakers. I don't know kazuma's history on here, but if that's all he/she has done, then a banning is a power trip, IMO.

Ya well I don't agree with issuing a ban over it - infraction fair enough. Ban was OTT. Unless Kaz is a general nuisance in AH.

As for the "power trip" comment - christ, that's just an immature accusation to make.

Daithi McGee

Kazuma wrote: »

I was under the impression that AH was a more passive aggressive forum.

FYP

tallaght01

Sully wrote: »

I absolutely hate it when someone drags up an old thread with absolutely nothing decent to add. Seriously. Its like replying to a new thread with absolute rubbish.

A case in point.

Whether you like old posts being dragged up is pretty irrelevant.

But you probably wouldn't see your above post as being irrelevant.

One man's bollix thread is another man's interesting thread.

seamus

tallaght01 wrote: »

I do see your point Seamus. I disagree with it. But I see where you're coming from. But, I think things should be let roll, and that if people want to discuss it, they should be allowed do it. I think we can disagree on that point civilly.

NO!

Will wrote: »

It's a 1 week ban, I'm sure you will survive.
Will reply again on the 29th of August 2017.

I've marked it in my work calendar. Conveniently, the next day has an appointment marked, "If you're still working here, please kill youself".

Dudess

Boston wrote: »

Why does tallaght1 always have to fight the established order? discuss.

Why not?

Why do you consider the "established order" so sacred and why are you constantly defending it by pouncing on people who question things here in a civil, reasonable manner?

Seamus, what about considering the actual thread though? Obviously the thread in question here was an exceptionally inane one and deserves closure/deletion, but what about, for example, a decent thread - one which might even have very useful information? For example, one about those scam marketing/sales companies in Work & Jobs?
To me, it would make more sense to resurrect one of those (even if it's two years old) rather than start a new one when there could be some very valuable comments in the old one.

Boston

I had a date marked in my calender which said "If you're still posting on boards, you suck". That day came and went.

Sully

tallaght01 wrote: »

A case in point.

Whether you like old posts being dragged up is pretty irrelevant.

I disagree. If most people on this site didn't like something, it would usually be fixed/changed.

But you probably wouldn't see your above post as being irrelevant.

Unless I am mistaken, you were trying to justify allowing old threads to be dragged up by making your opinion on the matter. I did one, but didn't agree with yours. If my post is irrelevant then we can safely assume yours is to

One man's bollix thread is another man's interesting thread.

Christ, if we let that attitude be taken Boards.ie would be ****e. Imagine AH then! :O

Boston

Dudess wrote: »

Why not?

Why do you consider the "established order" so sacred and why are you constantly defending it by pouncing on people who question things here in a civil, reasonable manner?

That's the second time you've brought up me pouncing on people. Is there some point you'd like to make or is it that you feel the need to add me to the ever growing circle of people who take a dig at you when ever you post on a topic?

Sully

Dudess wrote: »

Seamus, what about considering the actual thread though? Obviously the thread in question here was an exceptionally inane one and deserves closure/deletion, but what about, for example, a decent thread - one which might even have very useful information? For example, one about those scam marketing/sales companies in Work & Jobs?
To me, it would make more sense to resurrect one of those (even if it's two years old) rather than start a new one when there could be some very valuable comments in the old one.

Ah yes, I think that's exactly what DeV's point was. Allow if useful, scrap if not (or something to that affect).

tallaght01

Sully wrote: »

I disagree. If most people on this site didn't like something, it would usually be fixed/changed.



Unless I am mistaken, you were trying to justify allowing old threads to be dragged up by making your opinion on the matter. I did one, but didn't agree with yours. If my post is irrelevant then we can safely assume yours is to



Christ, if we let that attitude be taken Boards.ie would be ****e. Imagine AH then! :O

I think my post is as irrelevant as yours. I'm sure feck all ppl want to read about my views on 9 year old threads, but I posted anyway. Similarly, if some people want to post on 9 year old threads, then who are we to say our feedback posts are more important than their thread contributions??

Dudess

Boston wrote: »

That's the second time you've brought up me pouncing on people. Is there some point you'd like to make or is it that you feel the need to add me to the ever growing circle of people who take a dig at you when ever you post on a topic?

Wo... Wasn't trying to offend you - it's just something I've observed.

Cabaal

because its retarded, nobody should drag up old threads

seamus

Dudess wrote: »

Seamus, what about considering the actual thread though? Obviously the thread in question here was an exceptionally inane one and deserves closure/deletion, but what about, for example, a decent thread - one which might even have very useful information? For example, one about those scam marketing/sales companies in Work & Jobs?
To me, it would make more sense to resurrect one of those (even if it's two years old) rather than start a new one when there could be some very valuable comments in the old one.

Such posts are rare enough though and ones with such value are usually stickied or linked from a sticky to keep them alive.

You can have major discussions dragged up after a while, and the dragging up is effectively useless. Imagine someone dragging up one of the humongous abortion threads on Humanities and expecting everyone to just jump back into the debate. You'd have to go read the whole thing again, even if half of the original posts were yours.

So a new thread would better serve the discussion.

Ludo

Then why not delete everything older than XX months if they are ALL irrelevant.

seamus

Because they serve as an historical reference. A bit like looking at papers from twenty years ago. The usefulness of a two-year-old thread seems non-existent, but when the thread becomes a five, ten or twenty year old thread, then its value as a reference increases.

Daithi McGee

Ludo wrote: »

Then why not delete everything older than XX months if they are ALL irrelevant.

No point since the data.sioc-project loaded the whole of boards onto the internet! Bubbles is probably busy working away as we speak!

:eek:

Ludo

So what is the cut-off point for an old thread? Reviving an old thread will result in a ban at what age exactly?

Is a year old? Is it 6 months?

Sometimes someone starts a new thread and is answered with "Use the search button". What if they have and have an additional question in a technical forum. Should they start a new thread or revive the old one?

If they are valuable enough to hold onto then replying and adding to them should also be acceptable. Banning for it is an over-reaction.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

it
was
a
nine
year
old
thread.

end
of
discussion
.

Cabaal

Ludo wrote: »

Sometimes someone starts a new thread and is answered with "Use the search button". What if they have and have an additional question in a technical forum. Should they start a new thread or revive the old one?

If they are valuable enough to hold onto then replying and adding to them should also be acceptable. Banning for it is an over-reaction.

use search for the answer nut no need to reply, its not an overreaction, its how things are if people keep doing it after there told not to,

Stark

Ludo wrote: »

Sometimes someone starts a new thread and is answered with "Use the search button". What if they have and have an additional question in a technical forum. Should they start a new thread or revive the old one?

Fine to start a new thread if they have a question that hasn't been answered before. Most of the time the "use the search function" comment is made when a question is being asked ad nauseum. Half the time when I've seen it used, the question was answered in a thread on the first page of the forum!

R0ot

Necromancy is the art of the Devil and the mods don't like Devil arts!

tallaght01

|-*SxyDubGrrl93*-| wrote: »

it
was
a
nine
year
old
thread.

end
of
discussion
.

So how will AH benefit from banning the user?

seamus

Ludo wrote: »

So what is the cut-off point for an old thread? Reviving an old thread will result in a ban at what age exactly?

Depends on the inanity of the thread and the pointlessness of the new post.

Sometimes someone starts a new thread and is answered with "Use the search button". What if they have and have an additional question in a technical forum. Should they start a new thread or revive the old one?

I would generally say to start a new thread asking the question that you haven't yet gotten the answer for.

People are usually only told to use search when the same question has been asked over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over like, "Am I insured if I drive on the motorway with a provisional licence?".

If they are valuable enough to hold onto then replying and adding to them should also be acceptable.

So if I write a letter to the editor of the Irish Times based on a article written in 1956 about the price of oil, they should print it? After all, we hold onto copies of newspapers. Why?
It's held onto for historical purposes, not necessarily because it currently serves any particular useful purpose.
When a discussion is over, a discussion is over. Imagine going to the pub with your mates and saying, "Hey John, remember that conversation we had in 2002 about the world trade centre attacks?". "eh, no". "Well, here's why you were wrong..."

Kazuma

Cabaal wrote: »

use search for the answer nut no need to reply, its not an overreaction, its how things are if people keep doing it after there told not to,

No one told me not to.

Boston

tallaght01 wrote: »

So how will AH benefit from banning the user?

How will after hours benefits from not banning the user?

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

here's an example of a three year-old thread that was recently dragged up on the Consumer Issues forum:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054850923

obviously there was no point as the information in the thread was clearly out of date as companies and their policies and prices change over time

/ warning: its a boring thread and not worth reading

Kazuma

Boston wrote: »

How will after hours benefits from not banning the user?

That's a fairly absurd stance to take, sounds about one step away from banning everyone who doesn't post exactly what you want.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

tallaght01 wrote: »

So how will AH benefit from banning the user?

the user and others will learn not to drag up 9 year old threads.
simple enough.

Stark

Judging from the state of After Hours at the moment, it could only get better by banning everyone.

tallaght01

|-*SxyDubGrrl93*-| wrote: »

the user and others will learn not to drag up 9 year old threads.
simple enough.

Why can't you give them the benefit of the doubt and just ask them not to do it again (if it bothers you that much)?

Discussion as equals is a strategy that I use with both adults and children, and it works reasonably well.

You should give it a shot.

The power to ban someone should really be used sparingly.