Help me with board etiquette

[Excelsior! Academy]

In a recent thread someone mentioned resurrecting old threads is not done. Can someone explain the why to me?

[Parrothead]

1. Once it is gone it has been pretty much talked to death. You know how we are.

 

2. The OP may not be relevant any longer. I remember one the OP was pregnant (or maybe nursing) and the question had to do with the pregnancy. The thread was resurrected when the kid was 2 years old. :D Any advice she sought had long ago been answered.

 

3. People do change their minds about some things. Today's Republican is tomorrow's Democrat. Today's AP mom is tomorrow's free-range mom. You get the idea.

 

4. Sometimes feelings are hurt, bruised or bumped in some threads. Bringing back old hurts is never a good idea.

[elegantlion]

Another incident would be a new poster intentionally commenting on a controversial old thread to re-stir the pot.

[scrappyhappymama]

Plus, people feel silly responding to an older post, without realizing it is an old post. Especially if they have already responded to the post the first time and responded again without reading the entire thread. :blushing:

 

On the other hand, sometimes newbies get called out for posting on a topic that has been hashed over and over before. And then someone suggests they should search the boards first before posting. Sometimes you're ****** if you do and ****** if you don't.

[scrappyhappymama]

Another incident would be a new poster intentionally commenting on a controversial old thread to re-stir the pot.

 

True. However I think it's more common that they've fallen prey to the "similar threads" list at the bottom of the page. It's easy to do a search on a topic, find a current post, but then click on a similar thread post without realizing how old the post is.

[snickelfritz]

Plus, people feel silly responding to an older post, without realizing it is an old post. Especially if they have already responded to the post the first time and responded again without reading the entire thread. :blushing:

 

On the other hand, sometimes newbies get called out for posting on a topic that has been hashed over and over before. And then someone suggests they should search the boards first before posting. Sometimes you're ****** if you do and ****** if you don't.

 

I think searching old posts is good to do. Sometimes you will get an answer on things that don't change much (potty training, cry it out or not, etc)

 

I'll even PM someone who originally posted.

 

But if you have further questions, I think it's better just to ask a new question and make sure it's seen. If you ask a question on page 3, it's likely to be missed. I've even prefaced a question with "I searched, but didn't see this exactly answered....."

[Night Elf]

On the other hand, sometimes newbies get called out for posting on a topic that has been hashed over and over before. And then someone suggests they should search the boards first before posting. Sometimes you're ****** if you do and ****** if you don't.

 

:iagree: This is exactly what I was going to say. I specifically remember someone saying if a poster cannot be bothered to search the boards for an answer to an already asked question, they don't deserve to be answered in new posts. That was when I posted for ideas on brand new topics that this board has never seen before if we were limited in what we could talk about. I don't recall many suggestions.

 

Although, I guess that falls more under 'go search and read quietly, but don't resurrect'.

[snickelfritz]

:iagree: This is exactly what I was going to say. I specifically remember someone saying if a poster cannot be bothered to search the boards for an answer to an already asked question, they don't deserve to be answered in new posts.

 

.

 

See, I don't agree with that. At all. Members change. Perspectives change. I guess I can think of one reason this is an issue. On hot-button topics. But someone asking, for the millionth time about gluten free or thyroid issues (discussions I've been involved in and know have come up before)......ask away. Maybe someone has tried something new that works.

[Liz CA]

See, I don't agree with that. At all. Members change. Perspectives change. I guess I can think of one reason this is an issue. On hot-button topics. But someone asking, for the millionth time about gluten free or thyroid issues (discussions I've been involved in and know have come up before)......ask away. Maybe someone has tried something new that works.

 

Exactly! New members or members who did not see the original post may have something valuable to contribute.

[Catwoman]

I honestly could care less, but it is nice if someone points out they are doing it because sometimes I post a reply then realize the thread is two years old! Oops. :D

 

:iagree:

 

Yes, this.

 

Been there, done that, been embarrassed. :tongue_smilie:

[Myeightkiddies]

Most of the time, on this board, resurrecting old threads is done innocently. On other forums, people resurrect old threads as a means of harassing the board. They will go through and fill the forum with old (often several years old) posts. Because of this it is typically good etiquette not to resurrect old threads.

 

Also, sometimes old threads address events or sales or something that no longer applies. Readers get frustrated when they read something and realize that it is old and no longer valid.

[Trresh]

I'm new to this board but there's another forum I visited for years and I liked it when old threads popped-up. It was kind of like looking through a memory book.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Trresh

[Catwoman]

Searching and sifting through all the info on this site is not easy. Sometimes it really is just easier to ask again. And I don't mind answering again.

 

I don't mind answering again, either.

 

I guess we're just chatty. :D

 

Also, sometimes my opinions change over the course of a few years, particularly on homeschooling issues. The more experience I have, the more I realize how many mistakes I made in the past -- and I'm sure that in a few more years, I'll see what a complete idiot I am right now... ;)

[EmilyK]

I can't see why this would apply to curricular threads (what are favorite picture books about the Renaissance?) or even some travel threads (What are the best museums in Chicago?). While I think it is fine to start a new thread, it seems to me fine or maybe better to resurrect an old thread ("I just read this and it really helped, but has anyone heard of book X? any more ideas?). Some threads aren't particularly hot topics but people add things over time as the subject comes up for them.

 

Or am I missing something? I thought this rule was really about "personal problem" type threads.

[Dana]

I can't see why this would apply to curricular threads (what are favorite picture books about the Renaissance?) or even some travel threads (What are the best museums in Chicago?). While I think it is fine to start a new thread, it seems to me fine or maybe better to resurrect an old thread ("I just read this and it really helped, but has anyone heard of book X? any more ideas?). Some threads aren't particularly hot topics but people add things over time as the subject comes up for them.

 

Or am I missing something? I thought this rule was really about "personal problem" type threads.

 

:iagree:

[5kidsforME]

I think the only issue the board has with bringing up old threads is if it was a controversial, hotly debated thread.

 

Otherwise I don't think the board cares.

[Colleen in NS]

In a recent thread someone mentioned resurrecting old threads is not done. Can someone explain the why to me?

 

I don't see anything in the board rules that says we can't resurrect old threads. I do see that the boards are programmed to allow us to read similar threads and to resurrect old threads if we wish. If the mods didn't want us to resurrect, they would program differently.

 

I feel sorry for newer posters who are told that they are resurrecting old threads. Most of these people are just trying to use efficiently what the forum provides for us for free. Most are not pot-stirrers. I think that, if a reader doesn't want to be possibly embarrassed about posting on a resurrected thread, it's the reader's responsibility to take note of a thread's original date.

 

Every once in a great while, I will make a post that says "old thread," if it appears that someone was pot-stirring (and the contents of the pot are swirling 'round and 'round :tongue_smilie:). But I don't want to embarrass people who have good intentions in resurrecting, so I don't say anything.

 

Also, remember when this "new" board started, and the mods kept merging threads? (From the board rules: "Will we merge threads?

Yes. Unlike the old board format, this new format will bring an old thread to the top when a new post is added. Starting a new *update* thread is not helpful for those who did not see the original thread. If admins see a thread that appears to be an update, they will merge it with the original thread. They don't always get it right. Do everyone a favor and add your update to your original thread.") I don't see the mods merging threads anymore - I suppose it got to be too cumbersome for the mods to do so. But I believe the intent was to "save space" on the forums. So it makes sense to me that they provide the capacity to read similar threads and resurrect old ones.

[Excelsior! Academy]

Thank you for all of the responses. I understand not resurrecting sensitive matter threads. While I haven't ever intentionally stirred the pot, I think I have been guilty of reading several pages back and responding to a noncontroversial thread. I will be more careful of this in the future.

[Dana]

Thank you for all of the responses. I understand the not resurrecting sensitive matter threads. While I haven't ever intentionally stirred the pot I think I have been guilty of reading several pages back and responding to a noncontroversial thread. I will be more careful of this in the future.

 

At the speed this board moves, several pages can still be one day. I wouldn't think anything of that. It's when you're going back a couple of weeks on the general board that I think it gets weird.

[annandatje]

In a recent thread someone mentioned resurrecting old threads is not done. Can someone explain the why to me?

 

I asked that same question a month or so ago. :)

 

I did not understand why other people would be annoyed because someone failed to look at original date of a thread.

 

If I recall correctly, the resurrected thread was not time sensitive or controversial yet someone just had to point out that it was an old thread. Someone may have also put a snarky tag on it.

 

Even if an older thread was controversial, what is the issue? We repeatedly discuss contentious matters on this board of people, many of whom are vocally and strongly opinionated.

[MeaganS]

There are also a few threads that it is a good idea to resurrect. Two that come time mind are the "free curriculum" thread and the "vintage curriculum" thread. These seem to be ones that just continue to be worked on over time, and I don't think it is a faux pas to comment in these types of threads, especially if you have something new or interesting to add.

[staceyobu]

Thank you for all of the responses. I understand not resurrecting sensitive matter threads. While I haven't ever intentionally stirred the pot, I think I have been guilty of reading several pages back and responding to a noncontroversial thread. I will be more careful of this in the future.

 

I don't think several pages back is old. Going months back is old. Even then, I think it can be okay to bump. If something new is out and people are talking about it, I think it is acceptable to bump the thread a few months later to see what people have thought as they have used it for a period of time. Or, if you are wanting an update about something specific.

 

I asked that same question a month or so ago. :)

 

I did not understand why other people would be annoyed because someone failed to look at original date of a thread.

 

If I recall correctly, the resurrected thread was not time sensitive or controversial yet someone just had to point out that it was an old thread. Someone may have also put a snarky tag on it.

 

Even if an older thread was controversial, what is the issue? We repeatedly discuss contentious matters on this board of people, many of whom are vocally and strongly opinionated.

 

I think some people are going to be more annoyed than others. In general, I think it's just bad message board manners. And, probably a lot of brand new posters here know that from other forums they have frequented. If you constantly bump old stuff, it's going to push down the new stuff. And, I think bumping a controversial thread is pot stirring a lot of times. Posting a new controversial thread is also pot stirring, but that isn't the issue at hand. ;) And, a lot of us don't check the dates on threads on the first page or two before responding. It's irritating to type out labor advice for someone and then realize the kid is a year old!

[5kidsforME]

I asked that same question a month or so ago. :)

 

I did not understand why other people would be annoyed because someone failed to look at original date of a thread.

 

If I recall correctly, the resurrected thread was not time sensitive or controversial yet someone just had to point out that it was an old thread. Someone may have also put a snarky tag on it.

 

Even if an older thread was controversial, what is the issue? We repeatedly discuss contentious matters on this board of people, many of whom are vocally and strongly opinionated.

 

I responded to a few days ago to an old thread saying it was an old thread. BUT the reason I did is it looked like it was resurrected by someone that was spaming.

[annandatje]

I responded to a few days ago to an old thread saying it was an old thread. BUT the reason I did is it looked like it was resurrected by someone that was spaming.

 

That is understandable comment in that situation because a spammer is interested in diverting traffic for profit, not in conversation.

 

On my thread about the matter, someone said the resurrected threads were often result of spammers. I seldom see spam here, but maybe it is because moderators are johnny-on-the-spot.