reviving 2-3 yrs old thread???

[karlbo]

Isa lang ibig sabihin nyan...................yung mga bagong forumers gumagamit na ng SEARCH function!

tama lang yan...

[nerbyoso]

hahaha! sala sa lamig, sala sa init...you create a new thread some guy wud get angry..you revive an old thread you'll get this.

dont worry man, after a long dormancy this very thread will be revived and the cycle begins again. worst someone will create a new thread just like this...i said worst, so i guess you should be thankful.

[B2Bomber]

nagdadalawang isip muna ako bago ko napagdesisyunan kung saan nga ba ako re-reply. pero napag-isip ko'ng dito na lang tutal technically 6-months old palang 'tong thread na 'to. So in this count, di ako guilty of reviving a 2-3 y/o thread. so, hope you guys stick around for awhile...

dont worry man, after a long dormancy this very thread will be revived and the cycle begins again. worst someone will create a new thread just like this...i said worst, so i guess you should be thankful.

Well, *nerbyoso, I guess ako ang magiging pagpapatotoo ng 50% ng prediction mo. hehe.
For the other 50%, siguro pwede na 'tong thread na 'to or 'to as examples. Malamang marami pang iba d'yang di man ni-recycle yung ibang lumang thread nagkaroon naman ng "remake". (i.e. new thread same topic). And that is where I'd have to agree with some of the replies that say "at least they make use of the search function".
Take for example another young forum where I am a member of and where our local members (i.e. Philippine-based members) have our own sub-forum. Since we mainly discuss our "local" matters in our sub-forum and we cannot (at the moment) create multiple sub-forums in our own sub-forums, our threads end up in one place only, in our own sub-forum. We don't have the capacity (at the moment) to arrange the threads according to subject or there's not enough resource at the moment for merging threads/posts. Thus, let's say a thread pertaining to subject X was posted earlier and subsequently gets "buried". Then a new member arrives, starts of a discussion on another subject, say subject Y then all of a sudden goes OT and starts to ask/discuss subject X in a thread meant for subject Y. So what I normally do in my own capacity as an ordinary member (neither a mod nor an administrator, etc.), I create links to my reply to the query regarding subject X in the thread for subject Y, to the thread in subject X. At the same time, quoting whatever was relevant to subject X from the thread for subject Y in my "revival" post in the thread for subject X. IMHO, this is my own means as an ordinary member to sort of "moderate" the discussion so that once another member decides to use the search function, all the hits will just point to the least possible number of threads relative to whatever the member's search parameter/s was/were. A reminder to use the search function (e.g. the search button is your friend, do a search first) would also work, but given I've got the luxury of time anyway, I might as well "merge" the statement regarding subject X to a thread for subject X.
Even worst, as nerbyoso stated - some of the members (old and new) in our sub-forum create new threads about subject X because they didn't see an older thread regarding subject X in the first page of our sub-forum. When in fact, subject X may have been tackled several times already albeit buried in the other pages of the sub-forum. I'm not saying it's entirely wrong to do so or accuse them of being too lazy to use the search function as they may have valid reasons, like reasons related to inadequate time or something -- e.g. needs the answers quick, can only browse through for awhile, etc.
Before replying, I tried verifying the posts of the identified member in my example thread above. Not to defend the member or anything. But just to do a research first before I start commenting. IMO, he's got some sort of pattern with regards to the threads he's been reviving. My not-so-extensive research lead me to some observations,
1. the identified person "revives" threads with keywords like:
a. steering
b. windshield
c. engine
d. lights
e. rodents
2. in one (AFAIK) instance the member even cited why he revived the thread -- because the member had a similar problem
3. while reading through the search results, the member, though the answer to whatever was the member's question was was not in that particular thread, was somehow amused by the contents of the thread. Thus, wasn't able to resist to comment.
Not to take any more of your precious time, let me just come to my point:
I don't see anything wrong with recycling old threads because as I see it these may be some of the reasons why old threads get recycled (in no particular order):
1. one's search resulted in several threads that may date as far back as when the board was first populated.
2. to highlight older threads discussing a particular subject which may come in handy to newer members (e.g. Buying Cars and Dealing with Dealerships. similar to bumping/up'ing, say classifieds threads or keeping a certain thread alive like regional/chapter threads. Or another example which I think is highly acceptable to revive such a thread would be a thread for newbies to intruduce themselves.
3. progress reporting especially if the one who revived the old thread was the thread's very own threadstarter. same thing if one is particularly interested in the progress of the thread, thus reviving the old thread.
4. a member stumbled on an old thread and wasn't able to resist the temptation of commenting due to amusement - not all people go through old threads seeking answers, some just have alot of time in their hands and eventually find a thread amusing. I don't think this board's just meant for serious stuff only.
5. "clocking" posts - specially if one wants to attain a certain privilege, say the ability to post an avatar or something
6. etc., etc.
So, lest there are certain rules violated, say maybe it's deemed unacceptable to clock posts by merely posting 1 smiley, etc. just to clock post, then the member is accountable for inappropriately posting just to clock posts. Or a rule stating "no ups or bumps". Or unless a rule states, and AFAIK there is none in this particular board, that recycling/reviving is against the board rules.

[SIZE=1]Sana with all my effort (by means of examples, etc.) not to make this post branded as a rant or even an attack to anyone or being branded as "reviving" etc., it won't spark any flaming/bashing, etc. Unfortunately my reply ended up longer than I expected. [/SIZE]

[funkngruvn]

^^^kilala ko yan tinutukoy mo sir.. hehe
B2B:

gaya nga ng sinabi ko sa kabilang thread:
wala lang meron kasi topics na medyo interesting pero luma na.. hehe

Tsaka instead of starting new threads of the same topic, i use the "SEARCH" button above, kung mapapansin nyo dami threadtopics na nauulit lang, wala pa replies yung iba.... i think open forum naman ata dito? :peace:

[knights_templar]

No problem with me.

It is a tsikot rule to search first for the thread before posting new one.

[oldblue]

nagdadalawang isip muna ako bago ko napagdesisyunan kung saan nga ba ako re-reply. pero napag-isip ko'ng dito na lang tutal technically 6-months old palang 'tong thread na 'to. So in this count, di ako guilty of reviving a 2-3 y/o thread. so, hope you guys stick around for awhile...

Well, *nerbyoso, I guess ako ang magiging pagpapatotoo ng 50% ng prediction mo. hehe.
For the other 50%, siguro pwede na 'tong thread na 'to or 'to as examples. Malamang marami pang iba d'yang di man ni-recycle yung ibang lumang thread nagkaroon naman ng "remake". (i.e. new thread same topic). And that is where I'd have to agree with some of the replies that say "at least they make use of the search function".
Take for example another young forum where I am a member of and where our local members (i.e. Philippine-based members) have our own sub-forum. Since we mainly discuss our "local" matters in our sub-forum and we cannot (at the moment) create multiple sub-forums in our own sub-forums, our threads end up in one place only, in our own sub-forum. We don't have the capacity (at the moment) to arrange the threads according to subject or there's not enough resource at the moment for merging threads/posts. Thus, let's say a thread pertaining to subject X was posted earlier and subsequently gets "buried". Then a new member arrives, starts of a discussion on another subject, say subject Y then all of a sudden goes OT and starts to ask/discuss subject X in a thread meant for subject Y. So what I normally do in my own capacity as an ordinary member (neither a mod nor an administrator, etc.), I create links to my reply to the query regarding subject X in the thread for subject Y, to the thread in subject X. At the same time, quoting whatever was relevant to subject X from the thread for subject Y in my "revival" post in the thread for subject X. IMHO, this is my own means as an ordinary member to sort of "moderate" the discussion so that once another member decides to use the search function, all the hits will just point to the least possible number of threads relative to whatever the member's search parameter/s was/were. A reminder to use the search function (e.g. the search button is your friend, do a search first) would also work, but given I've got the luxury of time anyway, I might as well "merge" the statement regarding subject X to a thread for subject X.
Even worst, as nerbyoso stated - some of the members (old and new) in our sub-forum create new threads about subject X because they didn't see an older thread regarding subject X in the first page of our sub-forum. When in fact, subject X may have been tackled several times already albeit buried in the other pages of the sub-forum. I'm not saying it's entirely wrong to do so or accuse them of being too lazy to use the search function as they may have valid reasons, like reasons related to inadequate time or something -- e.g. needs the answers quick, can only browse through for awhile, etc.
Before replying, I tried verifying the posts of the identified member in my example thread above. Not to defend the member or anything. But just to do a research first before I start commenting. IMO, he's got some sort of pattern with regards to the threads he's been reviving. My not-so-extensive research lead me to some observations,
1. the identified person "revives" threads with keywords like:
a. steering
b. windshield
c. engine
d. lights
e. rodents
2. in one (AFAIK) instance the member even cited why he revived the thread -- because the member had a similar problem
3. while reading through the search results, the member, though the answer to whatever was the member's question was was not in that particular thread, was somehow amused by the contents of the thread. Thus, wasn't able to resist to comment.
Not to take any more of your precious time, let me just come to my point:
I don't see anything wrong with recycling old threads because as I see it these may be some of the reasons why old threads get recycled (in no particular order):
1. one's search resulted in several threads that may date as far back as when the board was first populated.
2. to highlight older threads discussing a particular subject which may come in handy to newer members (e.g. Buying Cars and Dealing with Dealerships. similar to bumping/up'ing, say classifieds threads or keeping a certain thread alive like regional/chapter threads. Or another example which I think is highly acceptable to revive such a thread would be a thread for newbies to intruduce themselves.
3. progress reporting especially if the one who revived the old thread was the thread's very own threadstarter. same thing if one is particularly interested in the progress of the thread, thus reviving the old thread.
4. a member stumbled on an old thread and wasn't able to resist the temptation of commenting due to amusement - not all people go through old threads seeking answers, some just have alot of time in their hands and eventually find a thread amusing. I don't think this board's just meant for serious stuff only.
5. "clocking" posts - specially if one wants to attain a certain privilege, say the ability to post an avatar or something
6. etc., etc.
So, lest there are certain rules violated, say maybe it's deemed unacceptable to clock posts by merely posting 1 smiley, etc. just to clock post, then the member is accountable for inappropriately posting just to clock posts. Or a rule stating "no ups or bumps". Or unless a rule states, and AFAIK there is none in this particular board, that recycling/reviving is against the board rules.

[SIZE=1]Sana with all my effort (by means of examples, etc.) not to make this post branded as a rant or even an attack to anyone or being branded as "reviving" etc., it won't spark any flaming/bashing, etc. Unfortunately my reply ended up longer than I expected. [/SIZE]

wow that's a long post

[LexTer]

Kung di dapat i-revive yung mga 2-3 yr old threads, dapat pala i-delete na lang ito para di na "mabuhay" ulit, di ba? Kasi useless din naman yung thread kung andiyan pa siya, "inaagiw" na, at bawal nang buhayin pa.

o kaya i close na lang para pwede mabasa pero di pwede dugtungan. choice naman natin kung babasahin natin o hindi e.