What is your policy, or who decides when a post is too old to respond to?

I have seen several old post come up that I would like to respond to.

MrChips has stepped in and asked people not to respond to an old post.

Why?

Why is the post kept open?

I never look at the original post date. If the post is at the top..........somebody has something to say.

If it bothers you so much....why not pick an out of date limit....say a year or 18 mo......but something that is fixed.........then grey out post name text or something....indicating that some think that the post is too old.

Personally.....I believe this is a terrible policy.

New solutions come from old problems.

What happens when a person reads an old post and almost finds his answer...........and can't understand one point?
Must he start a new post when all the background is in the old post?

Even if you don't need all the background.........from the old post you can see why he is asking.

Knowing why a question is asked..........one can give the correct solution.

I petition this forum to end this policy.

BR-549

 

Many threads are started by people looking for solutions to a problem. After a certain length of time we can assume:

1) The OP has solved the problem.
2) The OP has given up and is no longer interested in a solution.
3) The OP has long forgotten what is the problem.
4) The OP is no longer an active participant and has long forgotten about AAC and will never come back to read his/her thread.

I would set the arbitrary cut off point to 12 months.

If you find a historic thread of interest, by all means, go ahead and read it. But please do not reply to the thread even if you have some new useful information to contribute.

If you have a similar or identical problem then start a new thread but reference the old thread.

 

It is simple to create a new thread referencing the old one, saying something like I read this [LINK] and have another question...

 

I never see anything wrong if:
a/ the original post was not really answered.
b/ a correction can be made to miss-information.
c/ very relevant information can be added.
d/ the new question relates to the subject in question.
People searching for answers often come across these old posts for reference.

IMO the irksome thing is when someone adds a question to an old post which does not relate or only very vaguely to the OP.
Max.

 

You can please some of the people some of the time.
You can please some people all the time.
You can please all of the people some of the time.
But you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Remember that a thread is started by the Original Poster (Thread Starter), OP/TS.
Therefore think of your reply as being addressed to the OP/TS.
Even if you are attempting to rebut some other comment, remember that the OP/TS is no longer reading.
Twelve months later, keep it to yourself.
Don't sweat the small stuff.

 

You can please some of the people some of the time.
You can please some people all the time.
You can please all of the people some of the time.
But you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Remember that a thread is started by the Original Poster (Thread Starter), OP/TS.
Therefore think of your reply as being addressed to the OP/TS.
Even if you are attempting to rebut some other comment, remember that the OP/TS is no longer reading.
Twelve months later, keep it to yourself.
Don't sweat the small stuff.

The idea that the replies are directed to satisfy the OT/TS is obviously obvious, BUT, whether that process is fully o partially accomplished, the thread stays later as part of the "treasure" that future searchers could look at. The mythical OT/TS is not relevant anymore but the thread still is.

People adding to a thread where the OT/TS has vanished (who cares after all? ) just makes the trove reacher.

Making people to refrain of posting an additional bit of knowledge could satisfy a probably nonsensical rule but will benefit no one. That is for sure.

 

I just put myself in place of someone searching the Internet for answers, they can come across an old AAC thread on the subject, I know because they have shown up in my searches.
I don't see anything wrong in making a possible correction or challenging a statemnent or anwering an old thread that never got responded to or resolved.
It is still there for reference.
Max.

 

There never used to be a specific cut-off time for posts, I don't know where it appears in the terms.

Many threads change direction during their lifetime. This has usually been allowed once the original issue has been resolved, so long as the new direction is not abusive.

Some threads are designed to roll and roll for example the tips thread, the who are you thread and the jokes thread.

So it must be a judgement call to revive an old one and members must all exercise common sense when doing this, in order not to create unecessary work for the moderators.

Then everyone should be happy.

 

I just put myself in place of someone searching the Internet for answers, they can come across an old AAC thread on the subject, I know because they have shown up in my searches.
I don't see anything wrong in making a possible correction or challenging a statemnent or anwering an old thread that never got responded to or resolved.
It is still there for reference.
Max.

Completely disagree. If a thread has not been updated for more than 2 or 3 months then the thread should be considered dead (there are exceptions if course like some stickys on ways to do things and like the who are you and similar threads in off topic). Nothing is more obnoxious when a newbie comes in and wakes up sometimes dozens of threads.

 

. Nothing is more obnoxious when a newbie comes in and wakes up sometimes dozens of threads.

Well I guess we disagree, I moderate a large technical forum and we allow reviving old posts as long as it pertains directly to the OP, or contributes directly to the subject discussed.
Any that don't are moved to their own post.
This seems to work OK.
Max.

 

Well I guess we disagree, I moderate a large technical forum and we allow reviving old posts as long as it pertains directly to the OP, or contributes directly to the subject discussed.
Any that don't are moved to their own post.
This seems to work OK.
Max.

The big problem is that it can be abused. Seems newbies often post to lots of old threads (how they have time for all of that searching is beyond me). It's farily obvious what they are doing is simply trying to increase their post count. I probably would agree that it is OK for a forum veteran to add to an old thread. Newbies should really be restricted.

 

A thread belongs to the OP. This is the core to the policy. I regularly revive old threads I've started, and I've been here since 2008. If someone does it it is OK, but not for a 3rd party. We prefer, to the point of policy, that you start your own thread if the subject is that interesting. Then it is your thread, no question, and you can come back on it as often (or not) as you wish.