Moderation Question: "gravedigging"

[WizardStan]

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.

Or I like to be helpful and pre-empt people responding to months old posts full of extremely outdated information, as I've explained numerous times.

 

[Sphinxter]

Some graves should be dug.

 

[Grench]

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he have posted the answer into every thread that asked about SDXC to prevent someone searching and stumbling across an outdated thread?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".

Apples and Pears. The 'SDXC works' thread still has not answered the question of how fast is fast enough for SDHC - and is thus not the same question and does deserve a new thread. However, if someone DOES post back to one of the historical threads with a question about whether or not SDXC works, a pointer to the new article should be provided. Those threads should be combined - but if someone were to 'bump' them up instead of asking the same question yet again, you'd be the first to jump them about it.

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.

Or I like to be helpful and pre-empt people responding to months old posts full of extremely outdated information, as I've explained numerous times.

Which, if they are providing new information or answering unanswered questions from 4+ months ago - I think that is a GOOD thing. To resolve a thread rather than let it dangle in limbo forever? When did that become a bad idea? We're dealing with LONG time horizons on this project. There could be a 3 month lag in between posts to the 'I've got mine' thread - is THAT necroposting?

Ditch the silly rule.

 

[WizardStan]

Apples and Pears. The 'SDXC works' thread still has not answered the question of how fast is fast enough for SDHC - and is thus not the same question and does deserve a new thread. However, if someone DOES post back to one of the historical threads with a question about whether or not SDXC works, a pointer to the new article should be provided. Those threads should be combined - but if someone were to 'bump' them up instead of asking the same question yet again, you'd be the first to jump them about it.

No, apples and apples. The "SDXC works" thread answered the question of whether SDXC works or not. That question has 4 distinct topics of its own, and I'm pretty sure it was also asked within other threads. You argued that, once someone establishes how fast SDHC can go, it would be better if it were posted in one the "original" thread, suggesting that this would somehow prevent information fragmentation. I countered with the SDXC example showing that information fragmentation happens whether necroposting is encouraged or forbidden, so it's an invalid argument.
You have other valid points we can address, but this is not one of them.

Which, if they are providing new information or answering unanswered questions from 4+ months ago - I think that is a GOOD thing. To resolve a thread rather than let it dangle in limbo forever? When did that become a bad idea? We're dealing with LONG time horizons on this project. There could be a 3 month lag in between posts to the 'I've got mine' thread - is THAT necroposting?

Ok, apparently 4 times wasn't enough so I will try to explain a fifth time.
When someone posts to a topic with wildly out of date information, it is not good, and can be downright harmful. It has already happened at least once on this board with (thankfully) mild flamage, but I have seen other boards where the outdated information lead to serious debate, anger, and ego destruction. To that end, I like to ensure that such old threads are made known to be old before someone fails to check the timestamp and begins responding to a thread that likely has no relevance.

 

[mali]

^ You have valid points, no doubt
But don't worry, it'll work out and the fragmentation problem will also be addressed later. One step at a time. I'm an old forum junkie and I know how things work

 

[trix]

A bit off topic, but speaking of moderation questions, I have one of my own that is unworthy of a new topic, mostly for mali but anyone else is free to jump in with their opinion as well:

On a different forum that I moderate, I have become known for stealth editing small spelling and punctuation fixes into other people's posts. Most people appreciate me wasting my time making other people's sloppy posting habits easier to read, yet, others often express anger that I dare touch their posts at all if they are following the forum rules. Now, I'm not suggesting mali or any other moderator waste their time being a grammar nazi or anything like that, I am simply seeking opinions, from those with more experience moderating then me, on whether or not it is inappropriate to edit often extremely hard to follow posts with these types of corrections, and whether or not I should do so without announcing that I have done it. I usually do it stealthy, to avoid embarrassing the OP with the "post edited for readability" comment that implies they suck at English.

what do you think?

 

[Grench]

Apples and Pears. The 'SDXC works' thread still has not answered the question of how fast is fast enough for SDHC - and is thus not the same question and does deserve a new thread. However, if someone DOES post back to one of the historical threads with a question about whether or not SDXC works, a pointer to the new article should be provided. Those threads should be combined - but if someone were to 'bump' them up instead of asking the same question yet again, you'd be the first to jump them about it.

No, apples and apples. The "SDXC works" thread answered the question of whether SDXC works or not. That question has 4 distinct topics of its own, and I'm pretty sure it was also asked within other threads. You argued that, once someone establishes how fast SDHC can go, it would be better if it were posted in one the "original" thread, suggesting that this would somehow prevent information fragmentation. I countered with the SDXC example showing that information fragmentation happens whether necroposting is encouraged or forbidden, so it's an invalid argument.
You have other valid points we can address, but this is not one of them.

The example I gave was the pile of SDHC posts that have amassed over the last 1.5 years and how the information would have been much less fragmented if the posters of those threads had been allowed to simply post their additional question to the (an) existing thread. Why should a user bother to search if they are not allowed to post to 90% of the threads on a system? In this case, a single SDHC speed thread would have sufficed - or at least a single one that the other threads could be referenced to as they came up. Since nobody gets to post back to the older threads, the threads with the initial, and often the most insightful, phrasing of a question are left to rot with no answers provided. Essentially orphaned threads - which then frustrate the searcher to the point where they start yet another thread on the same subject that may have been answered on the 6th thread in their search results which they would have skipped because if the thread with the most posts didn't have it then why should another, etc...

Your counter was a single thread about SDXC working - which was not an example of either necroposting nor not - it was essentially a new subject. There had been speculation in some of the SDHC threads that SDXC would be neat in V2 of the device and how we should write a driver for it when it gets to the point where someone can afford it etc... At that point nobody had a clue that it might simply work. In this case a new thread is perfectly reasonable and expected. Bad counter example. Try again.

Which, if they are providing new information or answering unanswered questions from 4+ months ago - I think that is a GOOD thing. To resolve a thread rather than let it dangle in limbo forever? When did that become a bad idea? We're dealing with LONG time horizons on this project. There could be a 3 month lag in between posts to the 'I've got mine' thread - is THAT necroposting?

Ok, apparently 4 times wasn't enough so I will try to explain a fifth time.
When someone posts to a topic with wildly out of date information, it is not good, and can be downright harmful. It has already happened at least once on this board with (thankfully) mild flamage, but I have seen other boards where the outdated information lead to serious debate, anger, and ego destruction. To that end, I like to ensure that such old threads are made known to be old before someone fails to check the timestamp and begins responding to a thread that likely has no relevance.

Wildly out of date information? The ONLY reason information -could- be wildly out of date is if the subject thread is fragmented. The BEST way to cure this is to encourage everyone to 1. search and 2. post additional questions or information to EXISTING threads before considering to make a new one.

There may be a 3-6 month gap between posts - but if the next post is the next relevant question/answer/information for the given topic, there is no reason to start a new thread just because of the time gap. You still have not cited a single valid reason to want this fragmentation other than getting some sort of satisfaction out of having a reason to tell people off for dragging an old topic up. In many cases the old topic SHOULD be brought back up. If the topic continued on in another thread, a reference to that thread in the original would substitute, but then by your rules that reference is in itself a necropost.

So, other than some people only reading the last 1-2 posts in a thread before going crazy posting stuff - do you have any real reason why all subjects must be fragmented if they have not been posted to within an arbitrarily assigned time span?

There isn't any way to control people posting nonsense without reading a thread - that's just people. Whether they post it in the old thread where there is context or in a new one without - I'd rather see it in context.

 

[cosurgi]

There are too many threads appearing recently. I'd prefer the old days when you couldn't see a new thread for a few days. That was easier to follow. Now, if more people were replying to older threads instead of making a new one... old days would be back! So I like this, the only exception is a kind of obviously stupid gravedigging, in which case I don't like it, but fortunately it's rare.

 

[trix]

From my experience it seems extremely rare that somebody gravedigs in the "bad way" on purpose. Most of the time, the person either had something to add, or didn't realize how old the topic was. In the latter case, all the rules against it in the world isn't going to stop it from happening, because they just didn't know that that is what they were doing. In the former case, gravedigging (in my opinion) is perfectly acceptable and even desired.

The exception being social forums, where justifications for gravedigging are far more rare.

Bumping threads just to bump them, with nothing to add, however, can get tiresome, especially for old threads. Luckily, I have not seen that happen much on these forums, so at the moment it seems a non-issue.

 

[mali]

A bit off topic, but speaking of moderation questions, I have one of my own that is unworthy of a new topic, mostly for mali but anyone else is free to jump in with their opinion as well:

On a different forum that I moderate, I have become known for stealth editing small spelling and punctuation fixes into other people's posts. Most people appreciate me wasting my time making other people's sloppy posting habits easier to read, yet, others often express anger that I dare touch their posts at all if they are following the forum rules. Now, I'm not suggesting mali or any other moderator waste their time being a grammar nazi or anything like that, I am simply seeking opinions, from those with more experience moderating then me, on whether or not it is inappropriate to edit often extremely hard to follow posts with these types of corrections, and whether or not I should do so without announcing that I have done it. I usually do it stealthy, to avoid embarrassing the OP with the "post edited for readability" comment that implies they suck at English.

what do you think?

I corrected a few minor typos in topic titles, but honestly correcting spelling in a post is a bit too much invasion for my liking.

 

[Prometheus]

Wildly out of date information? The ONLY reason information -could- be wildly out of date is if the subject thread is fragmented. The BEST way to cure this is to encourage everyone to 1. search and 2. post additional questions or information to EXISTING threads before considering to make a new one.

I don't wish to butt in, but I feel compelled to say that I believe Stan was referring to the thread relating to the WiFi issue prior to the resistor fix being found.

As far as I'm aware it was the only existing thread on the matter (so, not a victim of fragmentation), and was quite long. It got bumped by someone with concerns about the issue, and it resulted in a minor "kerfuffle" for a short time.

Anyway, do pardon me, please. I just felt that this should be noted.

 

[WizardStan]

Your counter was a single thread about SDXC working - which was not an example of either necroposting nor not - it was essentially a new subject. There had been speculation in some of the SDHC threads that SDXC would be neat in V2 of the device and how we should write a driver for it when it gets to the point where someone can afford it etc... At that point nobody had a clue that it might simply work. In this case a new thread is perfectly reasonable and expected. Bad counter example. Try again.

Not a single thread. Four completely separate threads started by four completely different asking if SDXC was possible, all of which were started with no regard to the fact that the question already had at least one topic previously specifically about it, along with several other posts asking the exact same question. This is EXACTLY the same situation you're using regarding the SDHC speed: several posts asking what the maximum speed is, all started by distinct users with no regard to the fact that the question had already been asked and answered as well as anyone could have expected. You can't blame a person's inability to necropost on this because it is obvious they did no searching in each case because the question has always been answered in each of those threads: "it should but we won't know until someone actually tries it" for the SDXC question, and "24Mbit theoretical max, but 16Mbit seen in reality" for the SDHC question. Both questions are asked and answered several times in the last 2 years.
And then we have a definitive answer that was not posted into any of the previous threads asking the question, but an entirely new thread of its own, which you say is acceptable, but then you suggest that the answer to the SDHC question should reside in a previously opened thread. These are the exact same situation that you are trying to give different outcomes to.
At any rate, as I said: fragmentation happens regardless of a forums stance on necroposting or not. This is not a valid complaint against a rule against necroposting.

edit:

Wildly out of date information? The ONLY reason information -could- be wildly out of date is if the subject thread is fragmented. The BEST way to cure this is to encourage everyone to 1. search and 2. post additional questions or information to EXISTING threads before considering to make a new one.

I don't wish to butt in, but I feel compelled to say that I believe Stan was referring to the thread relating to the WiFi issue prior to the resistor fix being found.

Thanks!
I'd forgotten exactly which thread it was, just the end result. Cheers.

 

[mali]

You folks are hijacking my thread
Still discussing SDHXC thingamabob?

 

[hedwards]

I thought that grave digging or necros were strictly speaking limited to posts to ancient threads without actually adding anything of value to it. It can be ambiguous at times whether it's a legitimate post, but if it's a me too that's probably the case.

Personally, I'd rather see threads dug up if there's a valid reason for doing so, as it gets to be a bit hard to follow threads which reference another thread in that fashion.

 

[SomeGuy99]

Guys, you should know something:

In six months time, I'm gravedigging this thread. Infact, I'm putting it in my diary right now.

 

[WizardStan]

Guys, you should know something:

In six months time, I'm gravedigging this thread. Infact, I'm putting it in my diary right now.

And shortly after someone will no doubt think it's all new and reignite the discussion that had long since been concluded, unless it's made clear that you're gravedigging an old thread. I will bet money on that.

 

[trix]

Guys, you should know something:

In six months time, I'm gravedigging this thread. Infact, I'm putting it in my diary right now.

And shortly after someone will no doubt think it's all new and reignite the discussion that had long since been concluded, unless it's made clear that you're gravedigging an old thread. I will bet money on that.

This looks like a job for... WIZARDSTAN!!!

 

[SomeGuy99]

Guys, you should know something:

In six months time, I'm gravedigging this thread. Infact, I'm putting it in my diary right now.

And shortly after someone will no doubt think it's all new and reignite the discussion that had long since been concluded, unless it's made clear that you're gravedigging an old thread. I will bet money on that.

Guess we'll find out who's right then. B)

 

[WizardStan]

This looks like a job for... WIZARDSTAN!!!

But then I won't be able to claim on the bet. It's a conflict of interest. In the interest of science, I must remain an observer only

 

[Prometheus]

I'll observe. You claim on the bet. Or vice-versa, whichever you prefer.