Random question. Why do we look negatively upon old topics that get new posts a few months later? Why is that bad, even when new and/or relevant information is added? I don't really understand this phenomenon... I get reports about new posts in old topics and I wonder why we should care that it's old. Doesn't it make more sense to have one topic with comprehensive information than multiple topics with divided information?

Random question. Why do we look negatively upon old topics that get new posts a few months later? Why is that bad, even when new and/or relevant information is added? I don't really understand this phenomenon... I get reports about new posts in old topics and I wonder why we should care that it's old. Doesn't it make more sense to have one topic with comprehensive information than multiple topics with divided information?

I don't see what's wrong with it either. Why make a completely new topic when you could just revive the discussion. Plus, all of the information from the previous one is there.

I don't see what's wrong with it either. Why make a completely new topic when you could just revive the discussion. Plus, all of the information from the previous one is there.

Generally, half of that stuff was bogus anyway, with only a few informative posts. Sometimes you may see a thread with 2 pages that you hadn't seen before, so you go to read the page, only to realize you have already read it, but two months ago. I absolutely HATE long threads with multiple pages, just go look at the terrain ladder. If I could fit 1000 posts on one page, I would.

Generally, half of that stuff was bogus anyway, with only a few informative posts. Sometimes you may see a thread with 2 pages that you hadn't seen before, so you go to read the page, only to realize you have already read it, but two months ago.

I absolutely HATE long threads with multiple pages, just go look at the terrain ladder. If I could fit 1000 posts on one page, I would.

[quote=name:rockz]Generally, half of that stuff was bogus anyway, with only a few informative posts. Sometimes you may see a thread with 2 pages that you hadn't seen before, so you go to read the page, only to realize you have already read it, but two months ago. I absolutely HATE long threads with multiple pages, just go look at the terrain ladder. If I could fit 1000 posts on one page, I would.[/quote] lollazy How long does it take just to read a topic. You're not going to miss anything.

Quote from rockz

Generally, half of that stuff was bogus anyway, with only a few informative posts. Sometimes you may see a thread with 2 pages that you hadn't seen before, so you go to read the page, only to realize you have already read it, but two months ago.

I absolutely HATE long threads with multiple pages, just go look at the terrain ladder. If I could fit 1000 posts on one page, I would.

lollazy

How long does it take just to read a topic. You're not going to miss anything.

I don't understand it. I once actually, on a major WCIII mapping forum posted in a year-old topic that was still on the front page (inactive forum, I noticed later :() and was flamed by the administrator. Really annoying. Can we revive dead topics?

I don't understand it. I once actually, on a major WCIII mapping forum posted in a year-old topic that was still on the front page (inactive forum, I noticed later ) and was flamed by the administrator. Really annoying.

Can we revive dead topics?

Most of the time, the old topics (usually the ones with a lot of posts) get flamed out by the posters. It usually gets way out of hand and so far off topic that you read the first post, and then the last one, and wonder what happened in between.

Most of the time, the old topics (usually the ones with a lot of posts) get flamed out by the posters. It usually gets way out of hand and so far off topic that you read the first post, and then the last one, and wonder what happened in between.

Depends on what you are posting. The first post in a topic is usually the most important because new users will read the first post and then the last posts, so in some cases it is a good idea. Also when the old topic has been badly spammed to avoid people getting again offtopic.

Depends on what you are posting. The first post in a topic is usually the most important because new users will read the first post and then the last posts, so in some cases it is a good idea.
Also when the old topic has been badly spammed to avoid people getting again offtopic.

I've learned that you have to take moderation act on reviving of old topics on a case by case basis.

I've learned that you have to take moderation act on reviving of old topics on a case by case basis.

[quote=name:Mini Moose 2707]Why do we look negatively upon old topics that get new posts a few months later?[/quote] Because people for some reason think that since it hasn't had new posts in a while, it's somehow done with? [quote=name:Mini Moose 2707]Why is that bad, even when new and/or relevant information is added?[/quote] It isn't. There are just a few people who act all weird about it. [quote=name:Mini Moose 2707]Doesn't it make more sense to have one topic with comprehensive information than multiple topics with divided information?[/quote] It does. I think the issue is that often people bump old, worthless topics to add something of no value, or an off-topic point (eg. "Oh, I live in Canada, too, eh!" to a UMS assistance thread). If it's of [i]any[/i] value, it should be OK, even just posting "I like this, and want it to get some attention".

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

Why do we look negatively upon old topics that get new posts a few months later?

Because people for some reason think that since it hasn't had new posts in a while, it's somehow done with?

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

Why is that bad, even when new and/or relevant information is added?

It isn't. There are just a few people who act all weird about it.

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

Doesn't it make more sense to have one topic with comprehensive information than multiple topics with divided information?

It does.


I think the issue is that often people bump old, worthless topics to add something of no value, or an off-topic point (eg. "Oh, I live in Canada, too, eh!" to a UMS assistance thread). If it's of any value, it should be OK, even just posting "I like this, and want it to get some attention".

If they post in the old topic just to spam it (as is more often the case): lock If they post to continue the discussion: cool

If they post in the old topic just to spam it (as is more often the case): lock

If they post to continue the discussion: cool

It's not wrong. Whoever is complaining is a dumbass. Don't listen to those idiots.

It's not wrong. Whoever is complaining is a dumbass. Don't listen to those idiots.

[quote=name:Mini Moose 2707]Random question. Why do we look negatively upon old topics that get new posts a few months later? Why is that bad, even when new and/or relevant information is added? I don't really understand this phenomenon... I get reports about new posts in old topics and I wonder why we should care that it's old. Doesn't it make more sense to have one topic with comprehensive information than multiple topics with divided information?[/quote] I have said that a couple times when people bitch, but they apparently think it's always wrong. Bleh.

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

Random question. Why do we look negatively upon old topics that get new posts a few months later? Why is that bad, even when new and/or relevant information is added? I don't really understand this phenomenon... I get reports about new posts in old topics and I wonder why we should care that it's old. Doesn't it make more sense to have one topic with comprehensive information than multiple topics with divided information?

I have said that a couple times when people bitch, but they apparently think it's always wrong. Bleh.

I'm fine with people doing it when they're actually being productive. Say for example the original work thread. I goes from like one month of inactivity to someone brave enough to post their work, now THAT is good and productive and you're not going to create a whole new topic for three pictures of you. It's absolutely wrong when they're just following inside jokes made in the topics 2 months later than when it was posted or when you post something extremely out of topic.

I'm fine with people doing it when they're actually being productive. Say for example the original work thread. I goes from like one month of inactivity to someone brave enough to post their work, now THAT is good and productive and you're not going to create a whole new topic for three pictures of you.
It's absolutely wrong when they're just following inside jokes made in the topics 2 months later than when it was posted or when you post something extremely out of topic.

[color=#CE091D]I wondered this for a while too <_< However rockz has a point, in my opinion. Reading long threadss just to find out you had already read them... Although if you add relevant information, it is good... I'd say it's okay to revive old topics unless you post something like what Corbo said, in which case it should be penalized.[/color]

I wondered this for a while too <_< However rockz has a point, in my opinion. Reading long threadss just to find out you had already read them... Although if you add relevant information, it is good... I'd say it's okay to revive old topics unless you post something like what Corbo said, in which case it should be penalized.

I have to agree with everyone here, but would I be allowed to revive [url=http://www.staredit.net/topic/2270/]this topic[/url] without everyone getting on my tail about it? I actually made a lot of things for it that I never got the chance to post :P .

I have to agree with everyone here, but would I be allowed to revive this topic without everyone getting on my tail about it? I actually made a lot of things for it that I never got the chance to post .

I added a comment that was actually relevant to a discussion on another forum that I am active at, and a mod was like "Wtf, this is two weeks old? Don't bump." I was wtfing after that.

I added a comment that was actually relevant to a discussion on another forum that I am active at, and a mod was like "Wtf, this is two weeks old? Don't bump." I was wtfing after that.

Because the admins at the IPB forum website are jerks and warn for it.

Because the admins at the IPB forum website are jerks and warn for it.

If its adding new information I could care less but if someone dredges up a 2 year old topic to say "yeah lol" or something to the extent then flames will ensue.

If its adding new information I could care less but if someone dredges up a 2 year old topic to say "yeah lol" or something to the extent then flames will ensue.

[color=#b5b5ff]I agree; new relevant information is exceedingly rare. Topics in general don't just drop dead for no reason.[/color]

I agree; new relevant information is exceedingly rare. Topics in general don't just drop dead for no reason.

[quote=name:Laser Dude]If it's of [i]any[/i] value, it should be OK, even just posting "I like this, and want it to get some attention".[/quote] And on that note, I'd like to revive this[url=http://www.staredit.net/topic/2857/] topic.

Quote from Laser Dude

If it's of any value, it should be OK, even just posting "I like this, and want it to get some attention".

And on that note, I'd like to revive thisCan't Delete Attatchments topic.