Did anyone watch TV Sunday night?

Yep, at 10 PM on the Travel channel. Best Bigfoot series ever.

 

Does it do any harm if someone resurrects an ancient thread to add fresh information? There can be discussions of rare hardware where it's valuable to have related information all in one place.
On the other hand, there are obviously people who are being paid to join forums, then post something and include a tangentially related external link. I'd suggest a delay of a day or two before new users are allowed to post, and then a much longer delay before they're allowed to include the live links that earn them money.

 

I'd suggest a delay of a day or two before new users are allowed to post, and then a much longer delay before they're allowed to include the live links that earn them money.

That used to be true here, don't know if it still is.

 

Just for reference
Other forums I am on
if your replying to a topic over a certain age,
or one that has not had activity for a while
will flag when you try to reply ,

The suggestion if your asking a "follow up question"
is to start a new post, and include a link to the old post


Some sites do indeed close to additions posts after a period of in activity

 

Just for reference, I don't understand the problem with someone asking the OP if their solution worked, if anyone has other solutions to the same problem, or another proposed solution "for the record", or "just for reference" as follow up to some future person looking. If old posts are so bad, just delete them. Why bother making them read-only as so many have suggested?

imagine searching the internet for a solution to a problem then coming across a perfect thread that seems to address exactly what you are doing. After slogging through the 35 posts in the thread, understanding the investigation, the red-herring posts from the usual suspects, the bickering between members and finally get to the solution. Then you need one more clarification so you post a question. Then a mod moves your one clarifying question to a new thread. Out of context and ready for all of the same red herring posts, bickering between members and hopefully it will get to the stage where the other post was before the final clarifying question can be asked.

pin the mean time, the OP of the old post may have been notified by email that there was activity on his old thread. He logs in after several years (possible many years) to see there was no recent activity and no link to the new thread so he has no chance of seeing the question, no chance of giving advice on the solution provided or alternatives that actually worked.

As long as I've been on this site, there has never been a satisfying answer as to why old posts shouldn't be touched. It's just somehow a rule and rules must be followed - whether or not anyone who declared the rule has worked through the processes the OP and necroposter go through.

 

@MrSalts

You say
" If old posts are so bad, just delete them. Why bother making them read-only as so many have suggested? "

It depends if people come here to add or to find information

I come here for both
so deleting old posts to me is bad

BUT

I also see people replying to old posts
and evidently not realising they are old, qed might well not get a reply,
so locking old threads for new comments, or at least a pop up saying that this is old,
with suggestion that a new thread might be good,

as used by other sites,
sounds a good idea to me

 

It depends if people come here to add or to find information?

Please elaborate.
Why is it bad to delete them? If the visitor (new or old or even a participant) has his post bumped to a new thread and has to go through all the pains of explaining his specific post because there is no longer any context of other posts, the trouble of navigating the bickering between members and red herring answers from the under-informed

I come here for both
so deleting old posts to me is bad

I hope you don't have a question about an old thread.

I also see people replying to old posts

Other than breaking a "rule" please explain why it is a problem other than the date not being big enough or interesting enough to read them or that you have the urge to answer without reading the background and creating irrelevant comments because your idea was already dismissed in post 8, for example.

 

Other than breaking a "rule" please explain why it is a problem other than the date not being big enough or interesting enough to read them or that you have the urge to answer without reading the background and creating irrelevant comments because your idea was already dismissed in post 8, for example.

Re: Replying to older posts,

I see a few questions

I have seen on forums,
A poster gets "points" in a form, for making posts
after a while, the points are sufficient to be able to post
with a lower threshold of "supervision" they are trusted
Then the poster can post SPAM or other "bad links"
with lower chance of being detected.

If the user is posting asking for help,
its possible that those who answered previously are now "not active"
If the forum is busy, its liable the post for help will soon get lost
certainly when I look for people to try to help
I am more likely to reply to a low replied thread if I can as this needs more help
so an older thread is going to be less likely to be seen
and I would want to help all people,

 

@MrSalts

you say in response to my comment
I come here for both ( help and giving advice)

so deleting old posts to me is bad

"I hope you don't have a question about an old thread."

Sorry I missed something,
I dont want old posts deleted as others have said
so that I and others can search for them

 

This thread will remain locked because the moderation team feels that this thread has become rudderless and has strayed too far off topic.