Moderation Question: "gravedigging"

[bzar]

+1 for what Gruso said. For new developments on a previously discussed subject I think it's better to start a new thread and just link to the old one, but I don't mind gravedigging if there's actually more to say on the topic already discussed.

 

[verm71]

I've always thought that creating new threads for the sake of not gravedigging makes search results more difficult to weed through. As long as it's on-topic (and that call is subjective when threads start to stray from the original topic), I think that's where it should belong. Search for "amiga" and "full speed" and you won't get a bazillion different threads. (That particular thread has been going on for years now!)

 

[WizardStan]

As I said the last time gravedigging was questioned, it's a very risky business. You start with one gravedug post, but then a user who hasn't seen or doesn't remember it and fails to check timestamps rereads it and thinks it is new all information. In a forum such as this where information is basically outdated after Two Months it can be disastrous. Imagine the wifi or nub issue gets solved and 8 months later, after everyone has finally gotten their Pandora and the board is flooded with new users, some naive but well meaning newbie posts into the original "there's a problem" thread. Suddenly 50 users read it and respond with "I don't have this problem" or "how can I check if I have this problem?". It's a powder keg waiting to go off. All it takes is one user to say something disparaging along the lines of "I can't believe they would let something like this go for so long". I have seen it happen. I didn't get there in time to keep it civil but did my best to clean up the mess. We lost a lot of good coders that day.
If the information is still relevant, then there should generally be no problem bumping a very old thread, the problem is, how do you really know what is and isn't relevant anymore? Even a regular can easily miss a post or two and bump an outdated thread with good intentions.
The only person who can reasonably expect to be able to bump a thread, with little fear of misinformation spreading, is the person that actually has the information that makes the bump relevant, and only while supplying that information that makes it relevant: the original author of a programmer submitting a new release; the person responsible for the bug fix to the problem that was noted; etc...
This is why, upon encountering such a monumental bump, I make some kind of post indicating that it is a necropost. Hopefully that is enough to prevent people from thinking the thread is new and responding accordingly.

 

[Dunny]

Guys, guys, guys! This will not be a problem so long as anyone new to the thread in question goes back and reads the whole thread before jumping in. I don't see this as a problem!

Anyway, that's my 2 penn'orth, I'm off to post a new idea in the Our new Machine, Pandora thread.

Oh bugger, it's locked.

D.

 

[Iorgy77]

Wow, punishing people for actually using the search function, my how things have changed around here over the years.

 

[Grench]

I have been jumped for necroposting here before when I brought up additional relevant information on a 4 month old thread.

It's a stupid rule that needs to go away. MUCH better to have additional information relevant to the thread added to it. It shows that the user searched, found the proper subject and added his/her question or additional information - potentially an answer to a long lingering question.

The 'no necroposting' rule is something I would expect in a strictly social forum and NOT in a technical forum.

IMHO

 

[WizardStan]

The 'no necroposting' rule is something I would expect in a strictly social forum and NOT in a technical forum.

I would expect it to be the opposite, necroposts accepted on a strictly social forum and not technical, for all the reasons I've already given.
What's your explanation for your opinion?

 

[Poem58]

Since many topics can become horribly outdated shouldn't the idea of removing old threads that could not possibly be needed in the future be looked at as well? I've never quite understood the concept of saving all posts ever made when after a certain point they no longer have any relevance.

Maybe someone (a mod of course) should actually skim through and remove topics that would no longer be acceptable to be dug back up. Mark off any threads that need to be saved but should not be resurrected by closing them, making then only good for reference. While deleting anything unnecessary. Then only posts that could be continued would be the only ones left able to be posted in.

While this would be difficult for say Mali to do alone. I'm sure there are long time members who know the good information from the crap here who would volunteer to take a page of links and report back as to which threads are of use and which should be closed and/or deleted. Once done the spring cleaning would leave only maintenance of relatively new threads to deal with. Might simplify things later when 8000 Pandorians are searching and posting. It might really be worth the effort. After all aside for reference subjects like the design of the system etc. what from 2008 would even be relevant anymore?

 

[mali]

^ Thats a pretty bad idea, imo. Old threads are an archive and a community needs its history. I tend to believe that the common human is smart enough to decide what to bump.

It looks like people prefer a less strict attitude towards bumping old threads and so this will be my basis to work with. Bumping old threads is allowed as long as the topic is still valid and the post isn't crap.
Just asking for progress or posting meaningless stuff is crap and will be deleted. Moaning about necroposts will be deleted, too. Everyone bumping old threads should take the most recent one if there are several similar topics to choose from.

@All
Thanks for your input so far

 

[XxionxX]

My bad, when I see an old post I want to comment on should I just start a new thread? I was just trying keep the thread count down like the others have mentioned. It didn't seem that old (some posts are like 3 years old) so I figured that it would be better to post there.

Sorry mali

 

[mali]

^ You misunderstood Your post was actually the reason for this poll. I asked myself "What nonsense are you doing?" when I moved your post
I've seen several flamewars in the past after someone bumped an old thread so I wanted to know what people really think

 

[WizardStan]

It looks like people prefer a less strict attitude towards bumping old threads and so this will be my basis to work with. Bumping old threads is allowed as long as the topic is still valid and the post isn't crap.
Just asking for progress or posting meaningless stuff is crap and will be deleted. Moaning about necroposts will be deleted, too. Everyone bumping old threads should take the most recent one if there are several similar topics to choose from.

If you're willing to put in the work, ready to correct, delete, or move any post that unnecessarily bumps an outdated thread, then I respect your stance. Just be aware that if I find such a post I'll make an immediate followup post to inform others that it is a very old, bumped topic. Feel free to delete such posts once action has been taken or relevance established.

 

[mali]

^ The point is that I especially don't want to waste my time with reports on the matter or flamewars It's ok if you post then to inform it's an old topic

 

[Esn]

Since many topics can become horribly outdated shouldn't the idea of removing old threads that could not possibly be needed in the future be looked at as well?

No.

Anyway, current policy is fine, no reason to change it I think... 3 months limit, unless you have something to contribute beyond just "oh wow, that's so cool"...

The poll makes it pretty clear what the general opinion is.

 

[XxionxX]

^ You misunderstood Your post was actually the reason for this poll. I asked myself "What nonsense are you doing?" when I moved your post
I've seen several flamewars in the past after someone bumped an old thread so I wanted to know what people really think

Yah there was a link in another thread (which I cannot find even after looking though my history) and I wanted to comment on the conversation. I didn't know it would be this big of a deal. It has been kind of slow around here lately so I went looking for other topics to comment on. I didn't want to start a whole new thread just to make my comment heard : / <sarcasm> I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT ON STUFF WHY IS EVERYONE LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT!!?? </sarcasm>

 

[Grench]

The 'no necroposting' rule is something I would expect in a strictly social forum and NOT in a technical forum.

I would expect it to be the opposite, necroposts accepted on a strictly social forum and not technical, for all the reasons I've already given.
What's your explanation for your opinion?

#1. By posting the answer in a separate thread from the question you have made it 100% harder for someone searching a topic to find the answer.
#2. Social BS threads have already answered themselves. Technical topics and items can have a MUCH longer time frame for answers.
#3. Social BS has a short shelf life. Nobody cares who flamed who 3 months ago. Technical topics are relevant forever, or until new information comes up, which SHOULD have a continuous thread based on that topic. By forcing it to a new thread, you have effectively, for all time, FAILED to answer the original issue.

Do I need to go on?

Since many topics can become horribly outdated shouldn't the idea of removing old threads that could not possibly be needed in the future be looked at as well? I've never quite understood the concept of saving all posts ever made when after a certain point they no longer have any relevance.

What a horrid use of anyone's time. Disk is cheap - humanity is not. If you're getting too many search results from a query it is potentially because people fear posting more information to an old topic.

Just be aware that if I find such a post I'll make an immediate followup post to inform others that it is a very old, bumped topic. Feel free to delete such posts once action has been taken or relevance established.

That is only because you enjoy being a tattle tale, narc, pain in the ass, etc... You get some sort of personal satisfaction for jumping all over people for failing your personal, yet irrelevant rule set, regardless of the justification. You are not starting new posts as a troll, but you certainly do post a lot of pointless troll-like attempts to start arguments instead of adding pertinent information. You -enjoy- telling someone they should have searched, read the forum rules, are a fool, etc... Fine, whatever gives you a thrill.

Frankly, this is the first time I have EVER encountered a supposedly technical forum where necroposting is against the rules and adding additional threads for the exact same topic is not. Usually it is 100% the other way around. If you have something on a topic, search the topic. If you find 90% of your answer in a thread, post a clarification question or post an additional point to that thread. Then the next person can search, find your information as well - and it's all in the same thread.

Then people like WS can, when a newb posts a question that has been answered, point them to the thread that they should have posted to and berate them for not searching to their hearts content.

Removing the necroposting rule and -encouraging- single threads on topics instead of fragmented information would go a long ways to making these forums more usable.

As an example, how many threads do we have on SDHC cards and what is the maximum card speed that is usable on the Pandora? Which one has an actual answer? When we finally do have an answer after end users set up appropriate benchmarks, etc... Which thread should the answer post to? Many of those threads haven't seen light in 6+ months. Any search is going to come up with all of them - anyone looking for a real answer will have to go through them all to find it. If they had been encouraged to all be one thread - since the questions are all pretty much the same, the answer could be posted at the end of one - or a link to the new thread with the answer could be posted at the end of it. This blanket necroposting rule is just a mechanism for power hungry trolls to jump all over well intentioned people. It does more harm than good. End it.

IMHO

 

[mali]

^ I think you overreact a bit. Stan is a very helpful member Whatever, I think the situation is cleared up now and let's just move on

 

[Tempel]

Just be aware that if I find such a post I'll make an immediate followup post to inform others that it is a very old, bumped topic. Feel free to delete such posts once action has been taken or relevance established.

That is only because you enjoy being a tattle tale, narc, pain in the ass, etc... You get some sort of personal satisfaction for jumping all over people for failing your personal, yet irrelevant rule set, regardless of the justification.

No, it's because people like me often don't realize that a recently-bumped thread is actually really old. I don't know how many times I've gone through a thread thinking "When did this happen? What is wrong with these people?" only to have it all make sense when I see WizardStan point out its age (he doesn't cause trouble, just points out its age). Yes, timestamps are there, but not prominent enough to catch my eye.

So I didn't say it before because I thought it would clutter the thread, but thank you Stan for your diligence.

 

[WizardStan]

As an example, how many threads do we have on SDHC cards and what is the maximum card speed that is usable on the Pandora? Which one has an actual answer?

There's been 5 or 6 such questions, I believe. All of them should contain the answer, or a link to one of the other threads that has the answer. I know this because I'm usually the one that answers it. I don't understand what point you're trying to make though. None of them were started out of fear of necroposting, however; they were all borne of a failure to search.
Information will naturally become fragmented: people will create a new thread for a question; the same question might get asked in a mildly related thread; months pass and someone else, without thought to search, posts a new topic; with none of the original topics answered, some new person, completely unaware that the questions have already been asked will suddenly post their solution. Look at the SDXC problem. The question of whether the Pandora can support SDXC has come up many many times, and the answer was always "maybe, it should but we won't know until someone actually tries". Then one day someone did try a 64G SDXC card, and it worked. They made an entirely new post for it. Are you saying this person should have dug back several months to find any (or all) of the posts regarding SDXC and brought it back to the top? Should he have posted the answer into every thread that asked about SDXC to prevent someone searching and stumbling across an outdated thread? I disagree with that stance. I see no problem with having started a new thread. Any one doing such a search will already be assaulted with numerous threads. They can either look at every single one hoping the answer lies within, or just look at the most recent, or in this case look at the one thread which actually says "it works".

 

[Polossatik]

My opinion:
I never cared much about gravedigging and often would have prefered to continue an old discussion instead of starting a new one, when the topic is more or less still valid.

+1