I may be alone, but I seem to have noticed that new members seem to be resurrecting ancient threads from about four years ago, often just continuing the discussion in that particular thread.
I understand that reading old threads is good to find answers to questions (as per the search function), and that, occasionally, old topics are fine for comment. But could it be added to the forum rules that threads shouldn't be unnecessarily brought back to life after years have gone by?
Resurrecting Old Threads
Resurrecting Old Threads
If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.
It falls under the
If you feel somebody is "necro-posting" without adding anything of substance to the thread, report it - and a moderator will take a look at it.
We often do moderate such posting, but at times posts are relevant enough to warrant staying. Simply because a thread might be old, doesn't mean it is absolutely "dead". Even at times it is better to resurrect an old thread then creating a new with the same content.
But the post should of course bring something to the thread and not just be for "bumping"/"farming" purpose.
__________________
GameBanshee Moderator
GameBanshee - Make Your Gaming Scream
Forum rules
rule.Post farming or bumping multiple threads without having something to genuinely contribute to them.
If you feel somebody is "necro-posting" without adding anything of substance to the thread, report it - and a moderator will take a look at it.
We often do moderate such posting, but at times posts are relevant enough to warrant staying. Simply because a thread might be old, doesn't mean it is absolutely "dead". Even at times it is better to resurrect an old thread then creating a new with the same content.
But the post should of course bring something to the thread and not just be for "bumping"/"farming" purpose.
__________________
GameBanshee Moderator
GameBanshee - Make Your Gaming Scream
Forum rules
Insert signature here.
I've noticed that too, and I'm surprised it's not against the rules. I just checked, and there's no rule against it, although "post bumping" sort of covers it, and, I agree, there should be a rule against it. Just say no to necroposting.
EDIT: Oops, posted at the same time. I'm not quite sure I agree, Xandax, sometimes starting a new thread with the same content is better if, like in Nightmare's example, the original is four years old. Just refresh the whole thing, and don't get bogged down by old posts. It is of course up to you mods, and it doesn't seem like that big of a thing to begin with, since it usually only lasts for a bit, until the new people get bored or banned. ^_^
Still, I'm inclined to agree with Nightmare, that it may be helpful to include a rule/warning against unnecessary necroposting in the official rules.
EDIT: Oops, posted at the same time.
I'm not quite sure I agree, Xandax, sometimes starting a new thread with the same content is better if, like in Nightmare's example, the original is four years old. Just refresh the whole thing, and don't get bogged down by old posts. It is of course up to you mods, and it doesn't seem like that big of a thing to begin with, since it usually only lasts for a bit, until the new people get bored or banned. ^_^Still, I'm inclined to agree with Nightmare, that it may be helpful to include a rule/warning against unnecessary necroposting in the official rules.
"You like my helm? It's +5 Sexterity...It's...It's like Dexterity...but with 'sex'...in the front. Like a prefix...I'm kind of a linguist." - Zaboo, The Guild
Xandax sums it up pretty good. If a new member does a search through vBulletin or Google and finds a two-year-old thread of the exact same topic they want to discuss or ask questions about, I don't think it would be very welcoming if we gave them a warning or infraction for bumping such a thread with a genuine response. It would also be a bit hypocritical of us to do that, since we also encourage new members to use the search function.
Personally, I'd rather see legitimate responses to older threads than a bunch of threads dealing with the exact same topic.
Personally, I'd rather see legitimate responses to older threads than a bunch of threads dealing with the exact same topic.
I've noticed some threads particularly in the BG/BG2 area were kind of old. In the future I will report certain threads. I think I actually responded to a couple of threads which were about specific (to the OPs dilema) party compositions (for example) and not just a general topic. In those cases I reminded the person reviving the thread that the person from 2002 was probably not still considering the possibilities after 6 years for who should be the 6th member of the party:laugh:
Yeah I'll just report these in the future by my judgement and let the mods sort it out.
Yeah I'll just report these in the future by my judgement and let the mods sort it out.
Right Speech has four aspects: 1. Not lying, but speaking the truth, 2. Avoiding rude and coarse words, but using gentle speech beneficial to the listener, 3. Not slandering, but promoting friendliness and unity, 4. Avoiding frivolous speech, but saying only what is appropriate and beneficial.
Well, when you put it like that, I agree.BuckGB wrote:Xandax sums it up pretty good. If a new member does a search through vBulletin or Google and finds a two-year-old thread of the exact same topic they want to discuss or ask questions about, I don't think it would be very welcoming if we gave them a warning or infraction for bumping such a thread with a genuine response. It would also be a bit hypocritical of us to do that, since we also encourage new members to use the search function.
Personally, I'd rather see legitimate responses to older threads than a bunch of threads dealing with the exact same topic.
Like I said, it's no big deal one way or the other, for me. 
"You like my helm? It's +5 Sexterity...It's...It's like Dexterity...but with 'sex'...in the front. Like a prefix...I'm kind of a linguist." - Zaboo, The Guild
Basically - the line is where "does this add to the conversation". A 4 year old bumb with "I agree" or "yes", or bumping a thread with saying almost the same thing as is said in one of the previous posts, then with much higher likelyhood will it be moderated.Nightmare wrote:@ Xan and Buck, thanks for the replies, I just wanted to know where the line was.
But if it is an extension on the topic, and basically "reads" as if there weren't a year gab, it is properly fine.
But yes - report threads/posts which you think is out of line. Moderators might have missed it themselves, so we do rely a great deal on reports.
__________________
GameBanshee Moderator
GameBanshee - Make Your Gaming Scream
Forum rules
Insert signature here.
Ok...although it will seem kind of ironic but I will respond to this thread.
What if older posts are being resurected? Somebody new may add something genuinly innovative and raise new issues about the topic in question. In many cases, concerning older games like Baldur's Gate, there are two choices for someone who has a question similar to one who was posed 4 or 5 years ago. To either respond, and thus resurect an ancient thread, or to pose the exact same question in a new thread. Which one is worse?
Note that I could have done the same by making a new thread for this issue because this thread is a year old.
I believe that a rule like that, would limit the effectiveness of the forum in finding information.
What if older posts are being resurected? Somebody new may add something genuinly innovative and raise new issues about the topic in question. In many cases, concerning older games like Baldur's Gate, there are two choices for someone who has a question similar to one who was posed 4 or 5 years ago. To either respond, and thus resurect an ancient thread, or to pose the exact same question in a new thread. Which one is worse?
Note that I could have done the same by making a new thread for this issue because this thread is a year old.
I believe that a rule like that, would limit the effectiveness of the forum in finding information.
"I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. " Oscar Wilde
Typically what happens (and I know, because I did this with the old "anomen" thread) is that somebody searches for something and adds their two cents without it never crossing their minds to check the age of the original post.
When the user selects the option to "Show Most Recent" in some of our forums dedicated to older games, all the results that are returned can be several years old, in fact. If one doesn't know to look for the thread dates then they can easily think they are active discussions, and thus I see no problem with allowing that sort of thing. When it happens in my forums I gently let the poster know why they probably won't get any responses for their helpful comments. The thread vanishes back into oblivion within two weeks and it's over with. I hardly think it's worth moderator action.
When the user selects the option to "Show Most Recent" in some of our forums dedicated to older games, all the results that are returned can be several years old, in fact. If one doesn't know to look for the thread dates then they can easily think they are active discussions, and thus I see no problem with allowing that sort of thing. When it happens in my forums I gently let the poster know why they probably won't get any responses for their helpful comments. The thread vanishes back into oblivion within two weeks and it's over with. I hardly think it's worth moderator action.
"There are worse things in the world than serving the whims of a deadly sex goddess." - Zevran
As a rule of thumb - it is more "effective" to resurrect old threads then start new ones.
Again under the premise that the post adds something of value to the thread and not just is an "I agree" type post, in which case it falls under "bumping/necro-posting" etc.
It is easier to moderate existing threads like this, it is easier to find via search when threads are consolidated and thus it is easier to keep a discussion going because the number of threads the discussion is going on in are more limited.
It is also easier to branch out new topics in new threads when you know the thread you're leaving behind is mainly kept on one topic and not spread out across multiple other threads.
It is - as can be said - a win/win for posters and moderators alike
__________________
GameBanshee Moderator
GameBanshee - Make Your Gaming Scream
Forum rules
Again under the premise that the post adds something of value to the thread and not just is an "I agree" type post, in which case it falls under "bumping/necro-posting" etc.
It is easier to moderate existing threads like this, it is easier to find via search when threads are consolidated and thus it is easier to keep a discussion going because the number of threads the discussion is going on in are more limited.
It is also easier to branch out new topics in new threads when you know the thread you're leaving behind is mainly kept on one topic and not spread out across multiple other threads.
It is - as can be said - a win/win for posters and moderators alike
__________________
GameBanshee Moderator
GameBanshee - Make Your Gaming Scream
Forum rules
Insert signature here.
-
Lady Sophia
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:51 am
- Contact:
...checks date of last post like a good girl... <g>
I was reading through this and thinking resurrecting older threads is better, because the thread already contains information in it. Imagine the scenario where a question is repeatably asked on a forum over and over, because it gets answered then finds itself dropping over the front page after a week or so (in the more active forums that is). Someone goes to search and they get 20-30 entries of the same topic.
I'd much prefer the scenario where someone resurrects a 4-5 year old thread and adds there bit to it, so that if someone else has something to say about it in a reply, all the information/knowledge is contained within one thread. Then if the thread becomes popular again (especially if it is FAQ) all the knowledge and insight that people put into the topic is contained within one or two threads. As opposed to 20+.
The only exception to this rule, is if the topic is a flame-war, in which case they should be destroyed. Discussions, that is fine. Flame-War Threads should be annhilated (if someone could take all the wisdom out of the thread before it gets annhilated and repost it as an archive, even better), with a sticky/web-page dedicated to "Do not post the following topics..."
Perhaps you could include an FAQ/Archive Forum where older threads are stored and where you cannot create new threads. This could be used as a knowledge bank, a place where great wisdom is kept and people are told to look in first before posting topics.
Finally, if the older threads in this "Knowledge Bank/Archive" do not contain the correct information and someone makes a similar topic about it on the main board, any additionally insights into the topic can then be added to the thread in the archive by a mod. That way, you keep all the knowledge on a particular subject together, and not seperated by new/old posts on the main boards.
I know this kinda adds a work-load to the mods on the above point, and possibly maintaining an archive section of the forum might be more load on the site/server, but it would cut down on the redundant/older threads that are on the forum, especially ones that repeat the same thing over and over.
Thoughts?
I was reading through this and thinking resurrecting older threads is better, because the thread already contains information in it. Imagine the scenario where a question is repeatably asked on a forum over and over, because it gets answered then finds itself dropping over the front page after a week or so (in the more active forums that is). Someone goes to search and they get 20-30 entries of the same topic.
I'd much prefer the scenario where someone resurrects a 4-5 year old thread and adds there bit to it, so that if someone else has something to say about it in a reply, all the information/knowledge is contained within one thread. Then if the thread becomes popular again (especially if it is FAQ) all the knowledge and insight that people put into the topic is contained within one or two threads. As opposed to 20+.
The only exception to this rule, is if the topic is a flame-war, in which case they should be destroyed. Discussions, that is fine. Flame-War Threads should be annhilated (if someone could take all the wisdom out of the thread before it gets annhilated and repost it as an archive, even better), with a sticky/web-page dedicated to "Do not post the following topics..."
Perhaps you could include an FAQ/Archive Forum where older threads are stored and where you cannot create new threads. This could be used as a knowledge bank, a place where great wisdom is kept and people are told to look in first before posting topics.
Finally, if the older threads in this "Knowledge Bank/Archive" do not contain the correct information and someone makes a similar topic about it on the main board, any additionally insights into the topic can then be added to the thread in the archive by a mod. That way, you keep all the knowledge on a particular subject together, and not seperated by new/old posts on the main boards.
I know this kinda adds a work-load to the mods on the above point, and possibly maintaining an archive section of the forum might be more load on the site/server, but it would cut down on the redundant/older threads that are on the forum, especially ones that repeat the same thing over and over.
Thoughts?
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
I also think that resurrecting old threads when appropriate makes sense. But this is a bit of a non-starter issue, since we've pretty much allowed old threads to pop up under a variety of conditions:
The thread was an "everybody give me your views" type, with no apparent time limit (unlike "I'm looking for suggestions for my next game").
The thread was a carry-all for bugs in one game, or modifications, etc.
The thread was a poll with no obvious time limit.
The thread referred to a problem that someone solved, and now somebody else has the same problem, but the previous proposed solution doesn't work.
The thread was seeking answers, and there were additional ones to those already listed in it.
...and probably other types I've forgotten. In any case, we've pretty much allowed this kind of thread resurrection over the years. That makes sense. Necro-bumping without any purpose is something different.
The thread was an "everybody give me your views" type, with no apparent time limit (unlike "I'm looking for suggestions for my next game").
The thread was a carry-all for bugs in one game, or modifications, etc.
The thread was a poll with no obvious time limit.
The thread referred to a problem that someone solved, and now somebody else has the same problem, but the previous proposed solution doesn't work.
The thread was seeking answers, and there were additional ones to those already listed in it.
...and probably other types I've forgotten.
In any case, we've pretty much allowed this kind of thread resurrection over the years. That makes sense. Necro-bumping without any purpose is something different.To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.