Well they could be locked but then you guys cant complain if someone repeats a question thats already been asked or starts a new thread having the same stuff in because if they want to discuss it, youve locked the discussion thread lol
I'm not even going to read any messages after your initial post, I'm just going to say that I suggested the same exact idea, and it was almost immediately turned down for stupid reasons. I think it's a great idea. Theres absolutely no reason for people to be allowed to reply to old topics. If they're that important, then I don't see the big deal of making a new one.
I mean I can understand people saying "Well just reply to the old topic rather then making a new one." That sounds good in theory, but take into consideration that anytime anyone brings up an older topic, that person is attacked for doing so. Grant you these people generally are just reviving old topics on purpose to be annoying, but lets take a moment to consider the last time someone actually legitly even wanted to reply to an old topic with a good excuse?
Lock old topics. There's no good reason why we shouldn't.
but i guarantee you that almost every topic that is in the slightest bit old that gets revived, SOMEONE makes the comment "dont revive old threads"
if its a general consensus that reviving is frowned upon, old threads shouldnt be ALLOWED to be revived, ie autolocked after signigicant time has passed since the last post.
if you want to bring a topic back to light bring it back to light. in a NEW thread. that way the annoyances are weeded out.
slight edit: most revived topics end in a flame war and getting locked anyhow.
Nay. Sometimes, if a topic need be revived, parts of the discussion may need referenced, and it's no fun putting links. I honestly don't really have that much of a problem with old topic revival, it's just a bit weird. (Unless it's the "wtb #ri :< wait wat". That is annoying.) Nothing to get your panties in an uproar about.
Though I can't think of any specific examples at the moment, sometimes reviving an old topic is done so with a good reason. Why is it so much more annoying that an old topic about something is brought back up than when a new one is created? I'd find it more annoying to have something to say, and find that I can't.
Originally Posted by Dr. James Nah. Old threads are still relevent, just not all of them. If a couple of new members revive old topics is it really going to piss in your tea?
I never said they weren't relevant. I said they should not be revived. If it's so relevant that it needs to be revived, then you'll get less critique held against you by just making a new topic, then you would replying to one. Especially if that topic is over 5 years old!
Lol well yeah i know reviving old old ones is annoying, but if theres a plan to lock all the old ones that havent been posted in in a certain amount of time, people cant say 'we already had a thread about this stop asking again' if you know what i mean.
Originally Posted by Joellie Lol well yeah i know reviving old old ones is annoying, but if theres a plan to lock all the old ones that havent been posted in in a certain amount of time, people cant say 'we already had a thread about this stop asking again' if you know what i mean.
If you're asking a question, then use this brilliant SEARCH TOOL on the left side of the website. If you care to contribute to a topic, and it's already over a month old, then bring it up. If you know the topic already existed, then curiously make note of the fact that you didn't want to revive the old topic. People are a little more friendly here, then everyone seems to think. We just hate revived topics.
Its nothing to do with me lol i dont feel the need to dig up old posts, but im just saying, the locking of the old ones is a good idea as long as no one complains if someone brings the same topic up. Everyone has questions and if theyre not answered in the first thread about them then they would naturally ask in that thread, but if its closed, theyd have to ask the same topic but in a new thread. If you get me, im not rocking the boat im just saying in general, its a good idea as long as people can handle people making new threads.
I don't really see what others hate about it. Personally, I prefer seeing people revive a dead topic than ask a question that's been asked 2 months ago.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Originally Posted by Muz [AFK] I don't really see what others hate about it. Personally, I prefer seeing people revive a dead topic than ask a question that's been asked 2 months ago.
Yea, that's what I think. I'd rather someone continued an old thread than started a new one. That way some things are already pointed out, so there's less to deal with. Old thread revival complaints bug me more than old thread revivals themselves.
It never bothered me with dead topic revival. Actually I'm much more irritated by the people yelling "NECRO-POSTER!!11" "omg tish is teh old!!" like they made themselves look so much better.
Originally Posted by Joellie Lol well yeah i know reviving old old ones is annoying, but if theres a plan to lock all the old ones that havent been posted in in a certain amount of time, people cant say 'we already had a thread about this stop asking again' if you know what i mean.
Just my thought on it.
Exactly, you can't win with it.
I don't think people should try to continue a conversation in a topic that died 5 years ago. The chances are most of the members involved have already left anyway.
The reason people tell others not to keep asking questions is because the topic might exist with the question already answered.
But in my opinion people shouldn't get arsey with new members asking blatantly obvious questions. Because in most cases it's only obvious if you know the answer.
A good example would be someone asking how to make a character collide with a backdrop using the built in platform movement.
Reviving old topics is fine, so long as the poster is posting something useful/related to the topic.
In the case of the recent revived topics, the user posted spam and pointless posts - which are not allowed, whether they're in a new or old topic.
If an old topic is revived with a pointless/unrelated post, then I will lock that topic (as long as it is clear that nobody else wants to contribute to that topic). The user in question will then be warned, and if they continue they will be silenced for a week (they won't be able to post forum posts).
The suggestion of locking old topics automatically was suggested a while ago, but we're never going to do that (I don't think any forums on the internet do that, so I see no reason for us to do it). I think it would also cause more problems than before anyway, so it'll be staying like this. It's very rare for old topics to be revived anyway, so I don't know why everyone is getting worked up (especially as it was just one user who thought it'd be funny to revive these topics - he has been silenced now though).
I agree. I just didnt think it was necessary to lock them. Also andy: yes the question of the main poster may have been answered but what about if a new memeber has a question about the answer given or about something else thats related to the main topic? itd be much more trouble having to repeat all the answers to the first one plus elaborate for the new memeber on their new one.
I think the trouble is that people get annoyed far too easily. If someone asks a genuine question that has already been answered they'll most likely get a sarcastic response or be told to learn to use the search function. (it's also met with grammar nazis if they misspell something)
Having to rewrite previous answers isn't all that bad in my opinion.
It was actually 2 users in a single week(see original post). And They aren't that rare. also other forums DO do it. It's called auto pruning. Except they delete the entire thread. This would leave the thread intact for anyone searching for an answer.
I think maybe if the thread is REALLY old it should be closed but i really dont see any problems with revivals, either way people will be moaning if they open it or moaning that they're repeating a question (because they didnt understand the answers given in the locked thread)
Its really not that big of a deal when someone reopens a thread.
I was a bit annoyed when I read Brandon's huge post in his bumped topic only to find it was about 4 years old. But that is partly my own fault for not reading the date on the post.
If simple solutions are going to be so harshly debated (lock the stupid old topics), then I guess this site might benefit from a slightly more complex solution. Place topics under an Alert Lock. That way if someone replies to the topic, it wont reply directly, but instead will request approval from an admin.
Or if that's too complex, simply make it so that topics older then a specific date, add in a red Explanation icon or something, that way we don't waste our time reading stuff just because we don't make it a habit to check the date of posts we read, before we read them.
Originally Posted by BrandonC Or if that's too complex, simply make it so that topics older then a specific date, add in a red Explanation icon or something, that way we don't waste our time reading stuff just because we don't make it a habit to check the date of posts we read, before we read them.
Sounds better. Or just a simple pop-up when you hit Reply; "This discussion died a long time ago, do you still wish post?"
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by Cecilectomy
