Reviving old threads

[Dixie]

Don't leave home without it.

Again, you are my best friend.

Try to start some original threads? (My color poll was closed....)

Say you want to make a thread about...food. Look back...like a month ago to see if it was made...That might take too long, though...

[Vyk]

Old revived threads are closed so people can make a new thread if they really want to talk about the same topic again.

But don't people get told off if they make a thread saying the same thing as a thread already on the boards?

If it was a thread recent enough for someone to be able to easily find it on the first or second page, you'll probably get a link to it and a closed thread. It's doubtful you'll get told off, since it's a simple mistake and not really offensive to anyone.

Sorry to single you out, but I've been wondering about this myself. So let me get this straight: it's less offensive to make a duplicate thread (on accident of course) than to do the diligent thing and actually look to see if there's already one on the topic you want to discuss? I mean really... who cares if it hasn't been posted in, in a month. It's still open and usable, if something new comes up that can continue the thread where it left off I don't see why it's bad.

I mean yeah, posting in an old thread will bump it to the top, but that's exactly what's going to happen when you make a NEW thread, dealing with an OLD topic o_o;

[Sepho]

clout is using a justified text-align, and this makes me smile.

[crono_logical]

I usually use justified text, and I've even made a j tag in the forums to do it quickly and easily by wrapping the entire post with it :}

Sorry to single you out, but I've been wondering about this myself. So let me get this straight: it's less offensive to make a duplicate thread (on accident of course) than to do the diligent thing and actually look to see if there's already one on the topic you want to discuss? I mean really... who cares if it hasn't been posted in, in a month. It's still open and usable, if something new comes up that can continue the thread where it left off I don't see why it's bad.

I mean yeah, posting in an old thread will bump it to the top, but that's exactly what's going to happen when you make a NEW thread, dealing with an OLD topic o_o;

Like I said earlier, use your brain Look for the topic first to see if it already exists and use that one, but if it's not on say the first 2 or 3 pages of threads, then chances are it's old such that the previous discussion has died or become forgotton, regardless of if it's usable or not, so you make a new one instead

One month may or may not be acceptable depending on the forum and it's activeness - we don't set exact age cutoffs for threads to not be revived exactly because the speed of discussion varies from forum to forum.

[Yamaneko]

I close old threads that have been revived because if we allow one old thread to be revived then we allow them all to be revived. That would cause a mess in the forums.

[Destai]

I close old threads that have been revived because if we allow one old thread to be revived then we allow them all to be revived. That would cause a mess in the forums.

Except of course since that would never happen. Ever. I cant think of any reason why one thread reviving would allow every thread to be revived. There would still be the average ammount at the end of the day. It would make no difference at all.

[Big D]

Threads "die" because people have lost interest and stopped replying to them. This means that reviving the thread is very unlikely to contribute anything, especially if someone posts in last year's "what's your favourite food?" thread and just says "LOL NOODLEZ" or something.

Sometimes, a genuinely interesting topic gets revived, and it generates enough interest that it's left open. However, that's not the general rule.

[Destai]

Threads "die" because people have lost interest and stopped replying to them. This means that reviving the thread is very unlikely to contribute anything, especially if someone posts in last year's "what's your favourite food?" thread and just says "LOL NOODLEZ" or something.

Sometimes, a genuinely interesting topic gets revived, and it generates enough interest that it's left open. However, that's not the general rule.

As I understand it creating the same thread two years later will have the exact same effect. By which I mean, will make no difference.

[Leeza]

One main reason I don't like threads revived is because a lot of the people who have posted in them more than likely already stopped posting at EoFF. Also because some people who have already posted in them forget and post again. This is unnecessary. If it's an FF help thread of some sort and the help can still be continued, then that's fine, but that's not the sort of thread that's usually revived.

If it's an interesting enough topic, then it should be started in a new thread to get new responses and not regurgitate old ones.

[Destai]

One main reason I don't like threads revived is because a lot of the people who have posted in them more than likely already stopped posting at EoFF. Also because some people who have already posted in them forget and post again. This is unnecessary. If it's an FF help thread of some sort and the help can still be continued, then that's fine, but that's not the sort of thread that's usually revived.

Well I dont really see what the problem is with the people who have stopped posting at eyes on ff and if anyone was to repeat a previous post in the thread Im confident it would be a very small number. Opening a new thread would cause more of what Id consider un necessary posts than letting the old one open.

[Leeza]

It's best to just give it up, Destai because all threads that are revived will be looked at on a case by case basis and if a Mod thinks that it shouldn't be revived, it will be closed.

[Destai]

I cant honestly say I care Leeza. Im just making conversation because Im bored, not just because closing revived threads is pointless.

[Cloud No.9]

me thinks if new news on a matter comes through then it should be allowed. look at me and de menesez. having to make a new thread every week cos the last one died when new info comes out.

[Agent Proto]

I honestly don't see anything wrong with reviving a thread that had no replies for a few months, but when it's say... from last year, and started by a member who hardly posts nowadays, it can confuse the current members.

So, let's say a thread started by... HOOTERS got revived. This will likely confuse several members thinking he got unbanned and started posting, but when they open the "new" thread, they find out it's a revived thread. So they got excited over nothing. That's another reason why reviving old threads is bad.

[Shlup]

Sometimes I post in revived threads 'cause I forgot I posted in it a year ago and then I feel silly. ;_;