What topics should or should not be revived?

[Elazul Yagami]

shoma it's not really that complicated my friend

in your instance it's ok, because you're making (ir)regular updates to your story, so updating your thread even with a "chapter released" is fine. you're adding something worth while.

 

however, it's not fine for someone to revive a year old thread for example with a response like " i agree" cause it's pointless

[BlackKnight]

The problem, I think, is that whenever a topic is revived, it is usually by a new member or someone similar and all they do is offer a single line response or anecdote that has little insight or thought to add to the existing discussion. It is annoying then to jump to a topic looking for new info only to find the only offering being some moron's opinion on the price of fish.

 

If something worthwhile is posted in an old topic then thats good. More often than not this isn't the case. Ultimately though, if something worth saying comes up on an old topic, it could just as easily warrant a new thread itself. The bonus of this is that people don't have to wade through pages of years-old posts to get up to speed on the matter either.

 

SO in a sense, you're saying the mod/admin would have to be the judge of whether the post was worth resurrecting or not. Now you just have a base of "opinion in power" vs "opinion not in power". I think you should either allow it or dont. Me personally, i sometimes feel i have to rush my chapters when i see the 1emuadventure thread receding to the 2nd and 3rd page.

But if i had to make a choice i would have to go against my karma and depict which is revival worthy and not.

Because in a forum we shouldn't feel scared to comment or contribute to something just becuz its a couple months old.

 

I just related my thoughts on the situation. Based on that, I think it would be good to have a general rule as to how old a thread is allowed to be before it is classified as 'too old to revive'. Gamecop said a while back that as long as the thread is still on the first page of any forum then it is ok and I agree. With your example though, as Robert mentioned, it is your own thread, it has a purpose, and so you should never have to feel pressured to post, especially if only a few weeks have passed.

 

This topic came about I think because I told off a guy for resurrecting a 2-year-old MVC2 review just to say he thinks the game deserves 10/10. That really falls into the category of too little, too late if you ask me, but I guess reviews now constitute another exception.

 

shoma it's not really that complicated my friend

in your instance it's ok, because you're making (ir)regular updates to your story, so updating your thread even with a "chapter released" is fine. you're adding something worth while.

 

however, it's not fine for someone to revive a year old thread for example with a response like " i agree" cause it's pointless

 

Exactly. It is pointless and draws people's attention to an old topic for no good reason.

 

So yeh my stance is that we should designate a period, either by pages or months, after which a topic should be closed to new posts, with a few of those certain exceptions to the rule.

[OverlordMondo]

We could just have the moderators delete threads as they become too old or finish being worth posting on.

[Shoma]

BAd idea, then the rooks will nothing to look back to. We wont be able to say "search the thread" becuz there is none anymore.

We keep them so they can be used almost like a archive.(believed i spelled it wrong)

Keeping old topics is like the basic rule of forums.

[BlackKnight]

Deleting is a bad option, but archiving or locking old threads is more feasible.

[OverlordMondo]

BAd idea, then the rooks will nothing to look back to. We wont be able to say "search the thread" becuz there is none anymore.

We keep them so they can be used almost like a archive.(believed i spelled it wrong)

Keeping old topics is like the basic rule of forums.

If it needs to be looked back on put it in a sticky FAQ.

[Agozer]

Personally, I'm very strongly against deleting threads. I want archives since I want to read our past conversations in different threads.

[Mooney]

I agree, deleting is a bad idea. I myself have spent a good while reading old conversations and whatnot. I also agree with DragonKeeper: when a topic is revived, it usually seems to be a request for a download or something like "dude your totally rite lol." That's when the locking happens.

[Sybarite Paladin AxL]

I believe we're all agreed on not deleting threads, regardless of how old they are. Archived is the best way, I mean it's just text anyway, how big can it be.

 

Thread revivals with "dude, your totally rite" should not be locked imo but instead have the reviver warned would be my solution. Enough warnings would ensue a warning

 

I feel that when a topic is revived by any member (not just the topic starter) and he has something really worthwhile to add to it then it's fine by me. Kudos if he can get the thread started again. People don't necesarilly have to read the year-old posts, but ultimately they'd better understand what the topic is about if they read about it. New threads on the same topic is a bad idea imo.

 

I strongly believe that mods/admins should not lock an old thread if a good response was posted as this could lead to a revival and spark more conversation, which is the point of a forum...

 

members have to judge for themselves if it's worthy or not of revival and other members shouldn't be pissed if someone revives an old topic because no one forces them to post in the first place.

[Gryph]

Archived is the best way, I mean it's just text anyway, how big can it be.

Forum backups are upwards of 250 mb.

[Sybarite Paladin AxL]

Archived is the best way, I mean it's just text anyway, how big can it be.

Forum backups are upwards of 250 mb.

 

WoW, you know I'd be impressed if today's hard drives weren't 500 gigs minimum But yeah, that's a bit big for "just text"