Re: The Search Function, and Starting New Threads

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Firstly, let me say that I am VERY THANKFUL to post at a place where the search function works. It's a boon to discussion for many reasons. For one thing, it's great, when you've posted a lengthy opinion on something, to be able to find it again.

Secondly, I am thrilled at the fast response of the mods at this site, and truly appreciate when someone starts a thread that could easily have been bumped, had the starter simply done a search. I've seen things get re-started when that very topic was already on page one. There's just no need for multiple threads going at once on a single topic, and it makes responding a chore.


Here's the thing I'm not so sure about, though.
While I appreciate that there are threads in existance from years ago and that many people here have already expressed their opinions on a lot of topics, and it's boring to rehash things.... It's also a bit of a drag to feel like you have to read over pages of opinion by people who haven't posted at this site in years. In addition to the daunting task of reading opinions of strangers, I doubt that most of us would stay here for long, if no one responded to our posts, and that's pretty much what you can expect if you post in an old thread, in response to someone who's long gone.

So what I'm getting at is... if a topic has been dead in the water for a couple of years, is there a reason not to start a new thead? I am seriously asking, I don't know how the storage on something like this goes, and there may be problems caused that I'm not foreseeing.

Just wondering.

[7thson]

So what I'm getting at is... if a topic has been dead in the water for a couple of years, is there a reason not to start a new thead? I am seriously asking, I don't know how the storage on something like this goes, and there may be problems caused that I'm not foreseeing.

Just wondering.I do a better job at searching than I used too, but if I do not find anything truly related to what I am trying to say I go ahead and start something new. Sometimes I do find subjects partially related, but not usually in the tone I am looking for. An example is my Steven Spielberg thread http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=5714. Of course I knew there were other threads about him, many in fact, but I was not looking for an in depth discussion about him. I wanted a simple best/worst film snippet of info. I do not think this would have worked by either A: gumming up another thread, or B: wading through other topics although about Spielberg not a quick read which is what I was looking for at the time. I still got razzed for it though. Oh well. I start few threads so I tend to try and make them original when I do. But sometimes ,like you say, one wants a fresh look, and starting a new thread about an old topic is not always a bad thing. On the other hand 5 topics abot the exact same thing is wrong also. At least throw in a new twist if you are gonna rehash, or maybe even give credit to a similar thread and the reason why you started a new one. Eh whatta I know?:rolleyes: :)

[LordSlaytan]

Does bumping a thread necessitate a response to a previous post? I don’t think it does. I would rather someone update an old dead thread than create a carbon copy any day of the week. My main reason is that sometimes someone will find the original, post in it, and then there’re two threads with the same topic being posted in. I also hate searching for something somebody once said about a topic, only to find out that I have to go through multiple threads just to narrow it down.

Yeah, old threads with long-gone members are boring…and sometimes a fresh thread is better, but having it both ways just doesn’t seem to work that well. I’ll personally keep closing carbon copy threads if I see them, and if they’re unique, all somebody has to do is bring it to my attention and I’ll reverse the closure. I really only do it to list threads anyway.

Oh, Se7en: I think you nailed it in your second to last sentence. :yup:

[Piddzilla]

Well, how about closing the old thread instead of the new one? The old one is often dead anyway. This is not a very big problem for me except for when there's like ten different threads about The Lord of the Ring or about Donnie Darko and so on. I also sometimes tend to ignore resurrected threads because for me to want to engage in the discussion most of the times I want to read the bulk of the previous posts. And when most of the posts are 2-3 years old and by long gone members I lose interest.

Maybe we should have some kind of function that terminates threads automatically when there's been no activity in them for a certain number of months. To avoid deletion of "old classics" the moderators can turn those they want to preserve for the afterworld to sticky threads, which could be like some kind of security to stop them from being deleted even if there's no activity in them. Just a suggestion.

I think the number one thing in a forum is to encourage discussions.

[Pyro Tramp]

I have to agree with Pid, 7 and Sammy, bumping an old thread, or reading through one looses a lot of interaction and discussion with the people you know, and who's opinions you value. Posting in a bumped thread is often intimidating, and i always worried i was saying something someone had already said, so i felt obliged to read through the other posts, which by that time, left me little to post. I can understand that for long-term members who posted in the original threads, it's annoying rehashing subjects you've already discussed but for newer members, bumping old threads and closing new threads cuts a fair bit out of MoFo. Obviously if there is a thread which is identical to one you're about to start, then it's kinda pointless to make a new one. And the 'Favourite Movies' etc threads should be closed, but more specialised threads with an agenda that similar threads don't meet should be kept open for some discussion. I don't really know about storage and all that malarky, but perhaps an archive for threads that havn't been replied to in a few years? So there's an option to glance through and find what you're looking for, or the option to start a newish thread.

[LordSlaytan]

Hmmm...I like your idea, Piddy. :yup:

[The_Butcher]

This thread is towards me isn't it?:(

[SamsoniteDelilah]

This thread is towards me isn't it?:(
No, sillyhead. ;) It's something that comes up often here.
I think Piddy's point about encouraging discussion is extremely valid, and that resurrecting long-dead threads is counterproductive to that.

[Tacitus]

There's got to be some sort of time cut-off point.

If a similar thread's last reply was 3 years ago, lock it and maybe point to the new thread. If it's last post was 3 months ago, delete the new one.

[Piddzilla]

There's got to be some sort of time cut-off point.

If a similar thread's last reply was 3 years ago, lock it and maybe point to the new thread. If it's last post was 3 months ago, delete the new one.

Yeah, locking the old threads might be a better idea than deleting them which I suggested. If they're locked one could still read old threads for the fun of it but at the same time they don't get in the way for new, fresh and saucy :randy: discussions.

The green guy has work to do when he gets back... Yes, he does... :devil:

[nebbit]

There's got to be some sort of time cut-off point.

If a similar thread's last reply was 3 years ago, lock it and maybe point to the new thread. If it's last post was 3 months ago, delete the new one.

:yup: