I feel that old threads should not be able to be added on to after three months. What do you think of asking for this change?

[dnschmidt]

All the time I find myself answering questions on threads that I later find out are five years old. By that time who cares as the original poster has either solved his problem or died. I'm not saying that these threads should be deleted I'm saying that they should not be able to be resurrected by new responses to them. If you have a new problem make a new post.

 

[budget76]

how do you wander upon such old threads? or is it someone else revives and you do not realize?

I believe there are benefits, especially if it builds onto the original topic or answers those old questions, even if the OP is gone someone else might need that answer

 

[GirlnAgarage]

So because you didn't notice the dates, a new process has to be implemented? Pffftt come on dude I'm guilty of the same, but I don't want more rules. Just decided I'd be more careful and observant.

Adding processes and rules makes more work for the site and admins. Plus, sometimes an issue needs a resolution. Sometimes people don't come back with their solution. At least the topic is being addressed in one lication instead of 5 different threads on the same.

People used to gripe no one searched and made new posts about a topic already talked about. Now we've come full circle. Geez, can't win.

 

[kaymccampbell]

I vote for leaving things as they are. Resurrected threads are fun.

And, what about build threads that last years, what then? Gotta start a new thread every few months?

 

[zmotorsports]

Personally I don't mind the ability to have older threads become active again. Sometimes new information is available and/or no longer relevant plus it captures more opinions than just starting a new thread.

I also have a shop build thread that sometimes I may not make an update to the house or shop for several months and I like the ability to continue to add to it as time goes on.

As for those older threads that get revived, I try to look at the dates and determine if I have anything to add or not before participating but it's fun to see other member's comments as time goes on.

 

[bbrins]

I've seen many an old thread resurrected that got the attention of the OP, who then gave a long term update on whatever the subject was. I've had 20+ year old threads resurrected on other forums, doesn't bother me a bit. Plus it gives us another opportunity to pile on and point fingers and laugh at the person that necroed the thread after they answer a ten year old question that hopefully the OP has figured out by now.

 

[bbrins]

One feature that might keep people from necroing an old thread might be to have a little pop-up warning that you are about to reply to a thread that hasn't seen replies in _____ amount of time. I have no idea how to make something like that happen though.

 

[Meursault74]

 

[subroc]

I certainly understand participating in a dated thread with a time sensitive response needed can be maddening. The truth is not all threads are time sensitive.

Pay attention to the threads you participate in. You should change your behavior rather than asking the board to change theirs.

I participate in a forum on another board that dredges up past posts for the "similar threads" section that could be as much as a decade old. If someone reads a bit and decides to participate either out of ignorance or real interest, who am I to judge.

Before you read a thread or participate in a thread you read the title don't you? How about reading the date too. It is, after all, right there.

I like things the way they are.

 

[RTM]

All the time I find myself answering questions on threads that I later find out are five years old. By that time who cares as the original poster has either solved his problem or died. I'm not saying that these threads should be deleted I'm saying that they should not be able to be resurrected by new responses to them. If you have a new problem make a new post.

I completely disagree. I would much rather have an old thread brought back to add new information, or ask more questions, than have 32k disparate threads on the same topic . Bad enough now when we get three separate threads on What Tools for a New Homeowner? Within a few weeks cuz people are too lazy to search.

Now if you are gonna necro a ten year old thread to make a lame joke, shame on the poster.

 

[Steve from Socal]

I have projects even simple ones that go on for months/years. Having an time limit on a thread is counter to the 'story'

The idea of limiting a thread time frame would also lock up a good portion of content that would already be posted. That could make a good thread on a subject a dead end.

 

[bluedog225]

I love old threads. We have much to learn from the past.

 

[4xdog]

Three months is nuthin' in the life of some of our threads. I like keeping them around and active forever.

 

[GeoBruin]

Well it sounds like the people have spoken. Good thing we will be able to bump this thread once a year or so to remind ourselves what a bad idea it was.

 

[finn]

Three months might be extreme, but three years is too long. Some sort of eye catching “ RESURRECTED” banner flagging these old threads would be nice. I can’t seem to automatically scan for the date until I wasted a bunch of time.

Then I get pissed at myself for being an idiot And not skipping to the last post.

Edit: I noticed that when doing searches on the internet a flag stating something to the effect that this is an older thread pops up.

I like that.

 

[alfadan]

I think a beneficial add-on would be showing the date the thread was started under the thread title. If people could see a thread was started in 2005, they may not necropost it.

 

[GeoBruin]

I think a beneficial add-on would be showing the date the thread was started under the thread title. If people could see a thread was started in 2005, they may not necropost it.

The problem is not necessarily with old threads though. There are plenty of threads that are many years old that are still active. The problem is with dead threads that haven't been active in a long time.

To that end, I would be totally happy with some sort of unobtrusive flag indicating a thread hadn't been active in a long time, but it's also part of "netiquette" to check that before responding so I dont feel it's really critical unless it's easy to implement.

 

[Kurt4440]

We'll it sounds like the people have spoken. Good thing we will be able to bump this thread once a year or so to remind ourselves what a bad idea it was.

I don't think it is a bad idea, however, I prefer the idea of an indicator that the thread is old.
Additionally, old threads bring up former members that have moved on, or were pushed off, those threads are like a stroll down memory lane.

 

[CoogarXR]

I'm ok with leaving it the way it is. Once you've been on a forum a while, you'll see a post with replies from people who quit the forum or passed away, and it's nostalgic to see their names again. Plus that automatically clues you in that it's an ancient post.

 

[dnschmidt]

OK, I like the flag idea presented by GeoBruin above.

 

[Pinemarten]

There is a thread on the front page about using a miter saw as a cut-off saw. It was started Nov 2021. The last activity was in March 2023.............until recently. More posts coming in, and people sharing info and learning stuff. It isn't hard to read the dates, even I figured it out!

 

[CGarage]

I would very much *prefer* information be consolidated to one thread.

Sometimes, brilliant members will take a break or find other hobbies. Unless a search is done, their past contributions are lost.

Consolidating the information and keeping old threads alive is essential.

 

[mervyn]

Leave em alone

 

[cherokee]

How many times have you seen someone say "USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION". Ok lets say I do and I have a question, or looking for an update to a 5yr old thread. Is there anything better now vs. doing the way this was done 5y ago?

Leave things the way they are.

 

[finn]

This is the Garage Journal. That said, the one thing I have learned on this and several other legacy forums, is that the overwhelming majority of posters don’t like change. They are stuck in their ways and if it was good enough ten, twenty, of fifty years ago, it’s good enough for eternity.

Meanwhile, life moves on and progress and change eventually happen despite the resistance.

 

[Skyman]

I see little value in locking most older threads, and frequently find value in such threads when they've been revived.

I find it irritating when other forums I haunt will reflexively, and without good reason IMHO, do what's been suggested here.

 

[woody 73]

OP, I agree to disagree with this post, I like those old posts very much. case in point when 5 years go by and a GJ member writes oh my gosh the person you ae talking about was my great, great, great Grandfather, Jehoshaphat. Wow that just blows me away! .

The only thing I don't like is when a GJ member asks for help to the original op and that member has not posted back in several years, then the best solution is to start a new post.

 

[rd65]

nonsense. lots of good to be found in older posts.

 

[mikedodge]

You're damnded either way. It's annoying when people revive an old thread when they are only adding comments to whats already there when it's long dead and forgotten. And more often then not its someone new reviving them.

But at the same time if someone is asking a question relating to the old thread that it can continue on it makes perfect sense to do that rather then have the info repeated again and again.

 

[cvairwerks]

A number of boards I'm on, have the ability to pop up a warning box prior to one posting on an old thread. It asks if you really want to post on a thread that has been inactive for so many months or years. Once someone brings it back alive, the warning doesn't pop up again until the zombie time limit passes again.

 

[larry4406]

Reawakening an old post is no problem as long as it’s on point with topic and question.

I do think it’s prudent that the “reawakener” check to see if the person to whom he is responding to is still active if it’s a directed question. If not, start a new thread, link to old, and question away.

Last I recall, books, encyclopedias, get updated vs totally thrown out and start fresh.

OP - sharpen your surfing skills to see when post started if you don’t want to respond to reawakened threads.

My 2 cents.

 

[P0234]

I think its a good idea, but I think the OP should be able to awaken the thread. I posted up my experience with a particular epoxy flooring and updated it ten years later to show other people what my floor looked like after typical use.

 

[jabberwoki]

No

 

[alwaysFlOoReD]

No, no, NO! What's wrong with reviving an old thread? I like learning and sometimes that's the best way to get introduced to new (old) ideas.

 

[Walkers]

What would we have to complain about? to mock noobs about? Leave it as is!

 

[Jsf721]

I don’t mind reading a bump if it adds useful info

 

[Wrench97]

Leave them open, sometimes that thread is a google search hit that brings someone new to the forum with the same or similar questions
new members means more traffic on the forum, no traffic = no forum.

 

[ObnoxiousFumes]

I noticed that when doing searches on the internet a flag stating something to the effect that this is an older thread pops up.

Yep I’ve seen that too, seems like a decent idea.

But I agree with the majority, keep em open. Just remember to check dates before you post. I’ve made it a habit already on a couple other forums I frequent.

 

[Hephaestus29]

Total horse$h!+.

What’s worse is how people wander off topic.

 

[dchawk81]

All the time I find myself answering questions on threads that I later find out are five years old. By that time who cares as the original poster has either solved his problem or died. I'm not saying that these threads should be deleted I'm saying that they should not be able to be resurrected by new responses to them. If you have a new problem make a new post.

You make it sound like we don't keep rambling regardless.