Please don't add posts to very old threads

[Richard Rumancik]

Once again, a very old post pops to the top of the list, confusing people as to what year it is.

At one point I asked Keith if old posts could be closed so that no one could add or reply to them. After a few years (maybe even 6 months?), I think it is generally better to start a new one. At the time, Keith said that it would not be very easy to manage this using vBulletin. Other forums seem to have a way of automatically closing posts based on elapsed time. Anyone have ideas?

In the meantime, till a more suitable fix is available, I would ask that people consider whether it is appropriate to re-open a 5 year old post. Even if they have a similar problem/issue it is often painful to go through a bunch of posts and realize you are living in 2005.

If you really need to reference the old post, perhaps link to it in your new post.

[Doug Griffith]

That's a tough one. There is fundamental information that doesn't change over time. Appending to it may make more sense than rehashing what has already been said.

Instead of closing the threads, why not put more focus on the date. For example: if the thread is over 5 years old, present the date in bold red. This would be a fairly easy vBulletin hack.

[Jack Burton]

I am little new here so I hope to not offend anyone!

I feel that old threads should remain open.

Just as one should search for answers to questions, we should append related posts to maintain similar data within a particular thread.........

I am just a newbie here....so take it for what its worth.......

[Daniel Reetz]

It makes good sense to keep old threads open, because many threads are about problems, and it is good to be able to update them when solutions to said problems appear.

Closing old threads just invites new people to start new threads with duplicate content.

[Tom Bull]

One of the first things I do is look at the date and time stamp on the posts. Does help cut to the chase, so to speak.

[Bill Jermyn]

I have to agree to leaving old threads open. If someone is searching for a solution to a problem, it would be more time-consuming to go through several threads that don't lead to a solution, only to find that there's yet another thread that does. It's a waste of time and bandwidth to have a bunch of threads on the same topic.

If you find yourself in deja-vu land, just scroll to the bottom. The end key on your keyboard was invented just for these situations. :-)

[Ron Jones near Indy]

I agree with those wishing to keep old threads open. It seems counter productive to close a thread just because of age. Check the date and decide if you want/need to read it. You can open a thread and go to the last unread post--it's not necessary to go back to the beginning.

[Lee DeRaud]

Check the date and decide if you want/need to read it.I think that's sort of the point: you have to open the thread to find out how old it is. IMHO, the start-date of a thread should be displayed on the index page, maybe next to the originator's name.

[Jack Burton]

If the post is at the top of the list, that means something about it has changed....maybe we have learned something new since the original post and it is an update.....or maybe a clarification......date is absolutely irrelevant to me.

[Belinda Barfield]

There have been times when a new post to an old thread brings that thread to my attention, and I gleaned useful information from that thread. I don't have a lot of time to go back through every thread on the forum. I vote for leaving old threads open, and being allow to post to them.

[Scott Challoner]

A few years ago I posted on a thread only to realize I was going through the archives and not reading currents posts. I was just anxious to be able to offer a liitle help for once. Of course I immediately went back into lurker mode for another 6 months. I think that's how many threads come back to life. I'm all for leaviing it as is.

[Richard Rumancik]

Well, it seems that many people disagree and that old posts can be resurrected. If it is REALLY necessary to attach it to an old one - well, okay. But there's another one today on 3D engraving - I don't see how the new post is relevant to the old thread.

Also I think that since lasers, software, and the technology change over time what was true 5 years ago may not be accurate anymore.

If I really want to look through the archives, I know where it is . . .

I think that 8 times out of 10 a new post would be better but not everyone agrees.

Keith, I know it's late, but I'm sure glad you got your laser fixed. (Even though that was 5 years ago. Just saw your post yesterday.)

[glenn bradley]

I am for posting new info to existing threads.

[Frank Corker]

I don't really think that it can be helped. If the person reading through the older posts gaining knowledge (WHICH IS WHAT WE ALL WANT) sees it and makes a comment, he or she is faced with a couple of results. They might well be lambasted with a comment such as, 'read the previous posts'. Or what has happened a few times lately where they are not really aware that they have bumped an old post way up to the front line.

It would be great maybe, if the original post was not from the current year, show marked in a different colour, or some sort of tag to indicate it's an older post. I don't know if that's possible though. Unfortunately a lot of newbie's will not really be aware that posting on an almost extinct post is going to bring it to the forefront, or that they do indeed realise that it is an old post. This is not a solution, it's just my observation.

[Chuck Stone]

I think I'm just going to bookmark this thread for a couple of years
before I reply..

[mike holden]

Rich,
I am part of a continuing thread that is over a year old now, posts come in spurts, but they are all pertinent to the build we are doing.

What harm comes from reading and replying to an old post anyway?

Tempest in a teapot this is, in my opinion.

Mike