|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
|
| Author |
Message |
- #1
- Posted: 02/05/2012 09:23
- Post subject: Old threads
|
.
I'm not computer savvy so I will just come out and ask this and hopefully get an answer.
Why is it so wrong 2 post on an old thread. Is it just an uncool thing 2 do or what ?
Why bother even having threads from a year ago available 2 revive then ?
IMO interesting threads sometimes get quickly buried and forgotten.
But when I bring one back 2 page one people start complaining with, words 2 the effect, "who dug this old thread back up" ?
.
_________________
.
I owe $100,000 and wasted 4 years of my life.
And all I got was this silly hat
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
albummaster
Janitor
Gender: Male
Location: Spain
Site Admin
- #2
- Posted: 02/05/2012 10:21
- Post subject:
|
|
I think reviving a thread that's a few months old is ok, but a thread that's four years old is not. The members that wrote a thread that's four years old, for the most part, probably won't be here any more. A thread that's a few months old and still topical, I've no problem with being revived (personally). Obviously, not everyone thinks the same so that's just my own view.
|
|
|
|
Facetious
Gender: Male
Age: 25
Location: Somewhere you've never been 
- #3
- Posted: 02/05/2012 10:24
- Post subject:
|
Anybody can revive ANY kind of thread, be it four years old, or a month old.
Nobody should complain about digging old threads up, IMO.
So yeah, I think it's alright to dig any old thread up if you find it interesting.
Regardless of the members who created it and posted there.
|
|
|
|
- #4
- Posted: 02/05/2012 10:25
- Post subject:
|
| albummaster wrote: | | I think reviving a thread that's a few months old is ok, but a thread that's four years old is not. The members that wrote a thread that's four years old, for the most part, probably won't be here any more. A thread that's a few months old and still topical, I've no problem with being revived (personally). Obviously, not everyone thinks the same so that's just my own view. |
That sounds to me like we might need an 'archive' sub-category as well... to park any threads that are over x months old. It means people can go back and read them but they aren't active to add comments to.
|
|
|
|
- #5
- Posted: 02/05/2012 10:35
- Post subject:
|
|
^ that's a really great idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- #6
- Posted: 02/05/2012 10:45
- Post subject:
|
| Eggman/Walrus/Taxman wrote: | Anybody can revive ANY kind of thread, be it four years old, or a month old.
Nobody should complain about digging old threads up, IMO.
So yeah, I think it's alright to dig any old thread up if you find it interesting.
Regardless of the members who created it and posted there. |
Can I adopt you Eggman 
.
_________________
.
I owe $100,000 and wasted 4 years of my life.
And all I got was this silly hat
.
|
|
|
|
Facetious
Gender: Male
Age: 25
Location: Somewhere you've never been
- #7
- Posted: 02/05/2012 10:48
- Post subject:
|
| mancsoulsister wrote: | | albummaster wrote: | | I think reviving a thread that's a few months old is ok, but a thread that's four years old is not. The members that wrote a thread that's four years old, for the most part, probably won't be here any more. A thread that's a few months old and still topical, I've no problem with being revived (personally). Obviously, not everyone thinks the same so that's just my own view. |
That sounds to me like we might need an 'archive' sub-category as well... to park any threads that are over x months old. It means people can go back and read them but they aren't active to add comments to. |
No comments to add to old threads? NO. 
I like the archive idea though.  Good one.
|
|
|
|
- #8
- Posted: 02/05/2012 10:49
- Post subject:
|
| Eggman/Walrus/Taxman wrote: | | mancsoulsister wrote: | | albummaster wrote: | | I think reviving a thread that's a few months old is ok, but a thread that's four years old is not. The members that wrote a thread that's four years old, for the most part, probably won't be here any more. A thread that's a few months old and still topical, I've no problem with being revived (personally). Obviously, not everyone thinks the same so that's just my own view. |
That sounds to me like we might need an 'archive' sub-category as well... to park any threads that are over x months old. It means people can go back and read them but they aren't active to add comments to. |
No comments to add to old threads? NO.
I like the archive idea though. Good one. |
That kind of defeats the object of 'archive'....
|
|
|
|
albummaster
Janitor
Gender: Male
Location: Spain
Site Admin
- #9
- Posted: 02/05/2012 10:53
- Post subject:
|
|
The archive thing is quite easy to do. I just need to flick a switch. Maybe if a thread hasn't been responded to for at least a year, it should be archived/closed?
|
|
|
|
Facetious
Gender: Male
Age: 25
Location: Somewhere you've never been
- #10
- Posted: 02/05/2012 10:54
- Post subject:
|
| mancsoulsister wrote: | | Eggman/Walrus/Taxman wrote: | | mancsoulsister wrote: | | albummaster wrote: | | I think reviving a thread that's a few months old is ok, but a thread that's four years old is not. The members that wrote a thread that's four years old, for the most part, probably won't be here any more. A thread that's a few months old and still topical, I've no problem with being revived (personally). Obviously, not everyone thinks the same so that's just my own view. |
That sounds to me like we might need an 'archive' sub-category as well... to park any threads that are over x months old. It means people can go back and read them but they aren't active to add comments to. |
No comments to add to old threads? NO.
I like the archive idea though. Good one. |
That kind of defeats the object of 'archive'.... |
Why do you think I even disliked the idea of no comments being added to old threads?............
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
