PDA

View Full Version : What do you think about necro-posting and the 3 month bump rule??


violentblossom
23-05-09, 16:20
How do you feel about this forum rule?

Is it too constricting??

I personally feel that it keeps out clutter.

Discuss.

LaraCablara
23-05-09, 16:22
I think bumping is fine if you have something important to add, or if you don't want to start a new topic on something.

The current rule makes sense, but some mods still close the thread :o

Goose
23-05-09, 16:22
Depends, if your going to post somthing like "yes i agree with that" or somthing that doesnt add anything like that, then yea it should be ignored or deleted. But if somthing new comes up, or someone feels they have some input and wants to add to the discussion without making a new thread then it should be fine.

Nerd For Life
23-05-09, 16:23
I think some bumps are excusable because they are relevant. Others, not so much.

Goose
23-05-09, 16:24
If its in one of the TR games individual forums, where only one or two threads are being used for days or weeks at a time, it should be excusable, it hardly makes a mess there.

Draco
23-05-09, 16:24
I think if a thread isn't locked it should be perfectly fine to post in it.

I can't tell you how many forums automatically lock older threads around the 90 day mark.

Changeling
23-05-09, 16:27
I think it's fine if you have a good reason to post because you're actually contributing something to the topic or making more conversation by asking more questions, etc. and also if a lot of other people also reply to it.

But simply saying something like, "Yeah, it's cool," isn't a good enough excuse to revive the topic.

]{eith
23-05-09, 16:27
I haven't been on a forum where bumping isn't against the rules and it's not a rule I really disagree with. If I want to discuss something that's been done before, I'd rather make a new thread and start a fresh conversation. I don't mind bumping in sections like the Fan Art one, for obvious reasons but to an extent - like not bumping every thread on the last page to say "Ooh! :cln:" :p

Marianna12
23-05-09, 16:28
I don't know....
Bumping an 1 year old thread really gets on my nerves! (I have done that, when I was a hobbyist!:D)

Angelus
23-05-09, 16:30
{eith;3670025']I haven't been on a forum where bumping isn't against the rules and it's not a rule I really disagree with. If I want to discuss something that's been done before, I'd rather make a new thread and start a fresh conversation. I don't mind bumping in sections like the Fan Art one, for obvious reasons but to an extent - like not bumping every thread on the last page to say "Ooh! :cln:" :p

Exactly. :tmb:

violentblossom
23-05-09, 16:32
Many people consider it spam to have the same topic over and over. Hell everyone posting in 'Chat' or 'Game' threads is spamming. Why should constructive and on topic 'spam' be so ridiculed?



I suppose that its a matter of both self moderation and the substance of the post at hand.

It might also depend on the given topic and its relevancy.

patriots88888
23-05-09, 16:33
I think some bumps are excusable because they are relevant. Others, not so much.

Define relevant please. I think that's the major issue here. What one person might see as relevant and adding to the discussion, others may see as spam and uneccessary "bumping".

I think the hard rule is in place because there would be too much to leave to interpretation otherwise.

TRhalloween
23-05-09, 16:34
I'm guessing it would be annoying for the mods to have to decide which topics are irrelevant and need to be closed.

It's really annoying having the same topics pop up all the time anyway.

Just create a new thread, it makes things a lot easier. That's what I think.

TRULuverzz
23-05-09, 16:34
yeah, i bumped 1 thread without even realising and though *oh ****, i just bumped a thread because someone told me*. however i do think you should create a new thread relating to the old discussion :D

Nerd For Life
23-05-09, 16:35
Define relevant please. I think that's the major issue here. What one person might see as relevant and adding to the discussion, others may see as spam and uneccessary "bumping".

I think the hard rule is in place because there would be too much to leave to interpretation otherwise.

Oh you're right, I never looked at things that way... I can see why this is an issue.

violentblossom
23-05-09, 16:38
Define relevant please. I think that's the major issue here. What one person might see as relevant and adding to the discussion, others may see as spam and uneccessary "bumping".

I think the hard rule is in place because there would be too much to leave to interpretation otherwise.

Well, for instance, say a thread got bumped about Britney Spears and her mental troubles, but meanwhile, Britney Spears has been out of the headlines for several months and is even, by most accounts, doing well. That would, for me, be irrelevant.

pneboy
23-05-09, 16:40
i think that a new section should be made called trash, where basically anything over 3 months should be put and if it gets, lets say 10 posts in 2-3 days it gets verted back to the originial section

Nerd For Life
23-05-09, 16:40
^Good example... Or for example, if someone bumped that topic about Alfie, the 13-old-father.

TombRaiderLover
23-05-09, 16:45
^Good example... Or for example, if someone bumped that topic about Alfie, the 13-old-father.

Funny that you mention that, because it was recently revealed Alfie isn't the father of the baby, so in my eyes, a bump wouldn't be irrelevant.

Draco
23-05-09, 16:46
I'm guessing it would be annoying for the mods to have to decide which topics are irrelevant and need to be closed.

It's really annoying having the same topics pop up all the time anyway.

Just create a new thread, it makes things a lot easier. That's what I think.

The threads should be locked automatically then. There is no reason to have an anti bumping rule if you know how to set up the pruning functions correctly.

violentblossom
23-05-09, 16:47
Funny that you mention that, because it was recently revealed Alfie isn't the father of the baby, so in my eyes, a bump wouldn't be irrelevant.

Well, but since there is already a different thread on him NOT being the father, it would be irrelevant, but if no one had created the thread, then you're right.

Nerd For Life
23-05-09, 16:48
Funny that you mention that, because it was recently revealed Alfie isn't the father of the baby, so in my eyes, a bump wouldn't be irrelevant.

Yes that was my point - discussing in that thread would no longer be relevant. :D

patriots88888
23-05-09, 16:48
Well, for instance, say a thread got bumped about Britney Spears and her mental troubles, but meanwhile, Britney Spears has been out of the headlines for several months and is even, by most accounts, doing well. That would, for me, be irrelevant.

I understand what you are saying. But my point is, to use your example, someone just as easily could interpret that as relevant discussion because they have not been present on the forum for considerable amount of time and wanted to add to what she had previously been through. Practically anything can be intepreted or justified to fit one's cause in this matter.

violentblossom
23-05-09, 16:52
I understand what you are saying. But my point is, to use your example, someone just as easily could interpret that as relevant discussion because they have not been present on the forum for considerable amount of time and wanted to add to what she had previously been through. Practically anything can be intepreted or justified to fit one's cause in this matter.

Good point, but i think about it this way: what amount of discussion could be added to something that is no longer reality?

I mean, i suppose that you could go on and talk about how she could have avoided making certain mistakes, but i really don't know how much could be gained from that.. that's not to say that it isn't possible to continue generating great conversation and debate, but this is just how i feel.

rowanlim
23-05-09, 16:53
I rather old threads that haven't been active for a long time be locked.

Verdilet
23-05-09, 16:54
Doesn't bumping an old thread put a strain on the server? That's how I understood it anyway, but if it doesn't, I don't think there should be anything wrong with it. Not unless the topic is particularly out of date.

Although I think it would be quite annoying to have a thread closed automatically after 90 days. Old threads can be bumped for good enough reasons. I've seen it happen once or twice, and nobody seems to mind.

Ikas90
23-05-09, 16:56
If a simple, short post is added to an old thread, say, years old, then I think that post should be deleted so that the thread will go back to it's original stance.

I usually don't even bump threads that are three pages back, lol.

Draco
23-05-09, 16:56
Doesn't bumping an old thread put a strain on the server? That's how I understood it anyway, but if it doesn't, I don't think there should be anything wrong with it. Not unless the topic is particularly out of date.

Although I think it would be quite annoying to have a thread closed automatically after 90 days. Old threads can be bumped for good enough reasons. I've seen it happen once or twice, and nobody seems to mind.

Rules should exist in spite of the exceptions to them.

Verdilet
23-05-09, 16:58
^ Sure thing, but we also need to allow for exceptions to be made, if that makes sense.

Draco
23-05-09, 17:19
Ask a mod to open a topic you think is still relevant. Works like a charm.

Explorer
23-05-09, 17:24
3 month bump rule?? Really? :confused: I once bumped a thread that was dormant for about 2 months, and next thing I know a Mod is giving me a slap on the wrist ...

Anyway I believe threads such as this (http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showthread.php?t=126863) one dedicated to screenshots are an exception to this rule. A Mod recently stated that this was the case since it was nice to keep all screenshots to one thread.

spikejones
23-05-09, 20:58
as if the discussion will actually change anything :whi:
at any rate, if you really actually care about my opinion (who here actually does care about anyone's opionions :rolleyes: ) I think as far as the general discussion threads are concerned, there shouldn't be any "necroposting" rules in place. There should be a rule in place that any posting such as "yeah I agree" is a bannable offense. Talk about a waste of server space :mis: OTOH, in sections such as the tech support forum - if the thread is dead the reason is generally due to the fact that A) the issue has been solved, B) the OP has lost interest in trying to solve the issue (or their PC became so fried they can't get back to respond). In either of those cases, it is pointless for some nub to come in and post into any tech thread that's on the second or third page with a silly condolence or "try this" message. You're only flapping your gums needlessly at that point. The only bumpage I see necessary in that section is by the OP themself. The reason I don't think its necessary to frown on necroposting in other forum sections is that - if you look at past trends - issues such as "abortion" and such keep getting brought up every few months. Why not simply continue the debate where it was left off last time, rather than creating more clutter?

Reggie
23-05-09, 21:02
I think its a fair rule. :)

TombRaiderLover
23-05-09, 21:06
Well, but since there is already a different thread on him NOT being the father, it would be irrelevant, but if no one had created the thread, then you're right.

Ah, I wasn't aware a new thread had been made.

Quasimodo
23-05-09, 21:07
I think if a thread isn't locked it should be perfectly fine to post in it.

I can't tell you how many forums automatically lock older threads around the 90 day mark.

Does this forum software support such a function?

spikejones
23-05-09, 21:18
^maybe, maybe not. but lets say you are a newbie to the thread and you find nothing of interest to you on the first couple pages - yet looking back you see a plethora of interesting topics that have just made it to the nether-realm. you of course may not even be aware of the necro-posting rule considering that most folks don't even bother to read the TOS. So what do you do? you post in it. And then you get warnings and such from left and right saying you did a bad thing which you find to be totally ridiculous because, as you see it, you are contributing to conversation. Now.. if the threads were locked, what may happen then? Newbies come in and instead of necroposting, the create all new threads to continue the recently died out threads. Now we have more threads than are necessary. Id go with the lesser of the evils personally. at any rate, the VB software does actually have an archive feature that moves really old threads out of the index. I'm not sure there is even a way to access them from the forum itself, but they are how I found TRF via google. ;)

The Great Chi
23-05-09, 21:32
THE PROBLEM.....
As far as the three month bump rule, I did not know it even existed or adheared to.

I have had a few of my own older threads reserrected by enthusiastic members and yet it maybe less than two months old or the opposite where it is a year or older, and then some other member always has to say this was bumped, do not post in these older threads.

It is all rather frustrating for the bumping poster and the member who started the thread in the first place :hea:

SOLUTION: JUST LOCK ALL THREADS OVER A CERTAIN AGE.....
It would be better as said in quite a few of the messages above, to just lock all threads over a certain age, just like many other forums.

Is there a technical problem in doing this ?

That way if we refer to an older thread for reference (and this happens a lot due to the massive history and info on Tomb Raider on this site), we do not have to worry about someone posting in it and getting a reprimand for bumping by another meber or admin.

Just my humble thoughts on the subject :D

spikejones
23-05-09, 21:46
scrutinizing... scrutinizing.. scrutinizing...
oh... right. you said something about the locking of old threads. it would be much simpler in my eyes to simply stop having a stick up the behind about the whole deal. :p

mau3genius
23-05-09, 21:49
How do you feel about this forum rule?

Is it too constricting??

I personally feel that it keeps out clutter.

Discuss.

I think it's perfectly fine! But, there should be some exceptions made. There are certain threads that, even If old, still prove useful and don't harm when being bumped.

Johnnay
23-05-09, 22:11
I don't know....
Bumping an 1 year old thread really gets on my nerves! (I have done that, when I was a hobbyist!:D)

no mod can bash me for reviving a 1yr old thread unless if i made it and its important which i would be doing soon just guess why.

and what is necro-posting

The Great Chi
23-05-09, 22:28
...and what is necro-postingI think you have to be dead for at least three months, before you can post :vlol:

Changeling
24-05-09, 00:41
and what is necro-posting

Necro-Posting is when you post in a topic which hasn't had replies in a long time, on this forum, that time period is considered three months or more. :)

Draco
24-05-09, 00:54
Does this forum software support such a function?

I would be very very surprised if it didn't. There are free forums that can do it.

Trigger_happy
24-05-09, 09:47
I think the 3 month lock idea is a good one, but I don't think it would work. In the Other Games section of the forum, some of the threads devoted to one game can remain dormant for quite a while- the Heavy rain one didn't budge for like 3 months as no no information was released, and we had torn apart all we had. If that thread was locked, it would have been a royal pain to recollect all the info we had and put it into a new thread.

TRenTIs
24-05-09, 10:17
I think it would be funny if this thread were bumped after being dormant for three months.....

Fish.
24-05-09, 10:23
I thought it was necroposting if the thread was only 1 month old. :o

But yeah, I feel like it should be allowed if you're posting something relevant to the topic being bumped.

Dennis's Mom
24-05-09, 14:38
I think it's ridiculous to have threads available to be posted in, only you can't post in them because there's a rule written down somewhere that you never hear about until someone bumps an old thread. This thread looks interesting to you, so you go to reply, only to see the last post is a mod saying "don't bump old threads." :confused:

If you don't want people posting in old threads either lock old threads or move them to an archive. They're just useless baggage serving no purpose but to provide a "gotcha!" moment for people new to the forum.

ShadyCroft
24-05-09, 14:49
Current rules are fine by me.
However, I much prefer an old topic to have a new thread opened for it. That way we would start the discussion from ground zero. :)

Orionvalentine
24-05-09, 14:50
I may sound stupid for saying, but I never see a date on a thread. But I never leave the first page in the threads department :p

Squibbly
24-05-09, 15:07
I think it's ridiculous to have threads available to be posted in, only you can't post in them because there's a rule written down somewhere that you never hear about until someone bumps an old thread. This thread looks interesting to you, so you go to reply, only to see the last post is a mod saying "don't bump old threads." :confused:

If you don't want people posting in old threads either lock old threads or move them to an archive. They're just useless baggage serving no purpose but to provide a "gotcha!" moment for people new to the forum.

That pretty much sums up how I feel about it as well.

Draco
24-05-09, 15:19
I think the 3 month lock idea is a good one, but I don't think it would work. In the Other Games section of the forum, some of the threads devoted to one game can remain dormant for quite a while- the Heavy rain one didn't budge for like 3 months as no no information was released, and we had torn apart all we had. If that thread was locked, it would have been a royal pain to recollect all the info we had and put it into a new thread.

As suggest before, either ask a mod to reopen it or ask a mod to sticky it (Im pretty sure that would override the autolock).

Catracoth
25-05-09, 23:59
This has been wandering my mind for quite some time and I think it's about time I asked and got an answer so I can put it to rest. I'm an active member on three other forums and their rules are the same: if a user makes a thread regarding a subject where a thread was already created, the duplicate is locked and the member(s) is/are redirected to the original.

Here, you get reprimanded for "necroposting" or resurrecting an old thread, despite whether or not the member's reason for doing so was legitimate. Instead, we're to create a new thread on the same subject. That's classified as spam, in which spam in any other form is frowned upon. It makes no sense. So, you'd rather the members spam the forum then post in an old thread?

It makes more sense to lock the duplicates and redirect members to the original topics, thus keeping the forum flood-free and prevent 50k duplicates on a topic that everyone and their mother is sick and tired of hearing about. Also, it makes searching for existing threads much easier, that way members aren't overwhelmed when they see twelve threads regarding whether or not the DLC would be available on the other consoles*.

If you ask me, and this is just my opinion, but this rule makes the forum look pathetic. It makes it seem like the staff of the forum just want all these threads to make the forum look bigger than it really is, thus making it look more popular, bringing in a higher crowd of people than other Tomb Raider forums. But I'm willing to bet that if one were to pick this forum apart and remove all the duplicate threads, there'd only be about maybe one thousand threads total.

Utilizing the above mentioned method, you reduce spam, make searching for threads easier, and keep flooding under control. Every other forum I know does that and it seems the default method. Why it's all topsy turvy over here is beyond me.

Now, this was just my opinion, so please don't chop my head off for it. However, I am expecting at least four ignoramuses to post in this thread and completely miss the point of the subject, tell me "that's how this forum is, end of story", or just derail the entire thread. Guaranteed one of the three will happen in the next twenty minutes, if not all three.

*I used this topic since it was the most popular subject where 20k threads were made.

(from the thread I created about it)

TRhalloween
26-05-09, 00:05
Quite funny that a thread discussing duplicates was closed for being a duplicate :pi:

Catracoth
26-05-09, 00:07
I do see the humour in it, but it was locked because the original thread wasn't "three months old yet".

Tony9595
26-05-09, 00:07
@ TRhalloween, Seconded :D

I donīt see any problem with the way things are right now, but there are always certain threads that I donīt see any point in being closed, like recently... the Alister thread on the Legend section. I wanted to post there, but when I clicked on post... the Thread was already closed :(

violentblossom
26-05-09, 00:08
It was closed because someone failed to scan the first 2 pages..:whi: :D i really love you, Catracoth. :D

Tony9595
26-05-09, 00:11
Ok, Iīm confused now :confused:

Is it 1 or 3 months?

Aussie500 said this:

Well the game like this thread is over 6 months old now, so yes it would cost less. Nice to see you are still enjoy playing the games AtlantisRuler, but in future please do not reply to such old threads, the thread should be no older than 1 month, so at least we can remember it. Any older read it and start a new thread if you want to talk on a similar subject.

I just ask this to be sure about where should I post or not :)

--------------------------------------------

↓ Oh noes, confusion galore :eek:!

violentblossom
26-05-09, 00:12
Ok, Iīm confused now :confused:

Is it 1 or 3 months?

Aussie500 said this:

Well the game like this thread is over 6 months old now, so yes it would cost less. Nice to see you are still enjoy playing the games AtlantisRuler, but in future please do not reply to such old threads, the thread should be no older than 1 month, so at least we can remember it. Any older read it and start a new thread if you want to talk on a similar subject.

I just ask this to be sure about where should I post or not :)

Gabi told me 3. I thought it was 3.

TRhalloween
26-05-09, 00:18
I do see the humour in it, but it was locked because the original thread wasn't "three months old yet".

It was still a duplicate. I agree with what you said though. I think the mods close threads because of bandwidth or something. I don't know anything about that; I'm just here to look pretty :cool:

Mr.Burns
26-05-09, 00:21
Three months was my cut off date, though I tended to take into consideration the thread topic first. If it was a topic that really had no relevance at the current time, then yea, I'd close it. Otherwise, if a thread was quite heated and then died off, bumping it could reignite a dead argument and of course, in many cases, the people who were prominent in the fight the first time are no longer around to defend themselves.

Catracoth
26-05-09, 00:26
It was closed because someone failed to scan the first 2 pages..:whi: :D i really love you, Catracoth. :D

Awh thanks, :hug:.

Angelus
26-05-09, 00:29
I think you have to be dead for at least three months, before you can post :vlol:

:vlol:

Melonie Tomb Raider
26-05-09, 00:36
I like things the way they are now. If you be rid of the bump rule, then any new topics that may have been older topics would be considered spam, and everyone would have to bump the old threads everytime they wanted to talk about the same topic. :p

spikejones
26-05-09, 00:37
I do see the humour in it, but it was locked because the original thread wasn't "three months old yet".
so in essence:
I make a thread today on boogers, and you make one tomorrow. Yours gets closed and redirected to mine.

I make a thread on boogers today and 4 months from now you make a thread on boogers. Yours stays open.

ignoramous I am not, yet that is the way it is. do I agree with it? not really. I find that discouraging necroposting leads to excess threads of the same topic when all that is needed is ONE thread, however old. It just makes clutter to have 10 threads on boogers.
bumping it could reignite a dead argument and of course, in many cases, the people who were prominent in the fight the first time are no longer around to defend themselves.
generally this is because interest was lost in that discussion after a while, and as such the thread died down. this one too will die after a while, and about 4-6 months from now, someone will make another like it. what I generally do in that case is to search it up and say "hey, check it out... we have one like that already". Lets look at the results of searching for "abortion" in thread titles only and see the results:

http://www.tombraiderforums.com/search.php?searchid=439895

now search through just the first two pages in the first two threads and see that some of the same members have contributed to both debates. seems to me like they were still around to defend their same views as before :pi:

Ward Dragon
26-05-09, 00:44
Gabi told me 3. I thought it was 3.

I've been using around 2-3 months as the cut-off point, depending upon the substance of the bump (if it's just, "Oh yeah, I agree!" then I'd close the thread, but if it's a question or something that requires discussion then I'd leave it open).

Anyhow, I like the way things are now because I think it stimulates new discussion. If most topics got closed and redirected to old threads then what's the point of posting anything? Chances are whatever you want to say has already been said by someone else, and if you reply to an older post the person who wrote it might not still be here and thus would never answer back. This way it's nice and clean. Everyone can write their own views without being daunted by having to go through hundreds of old posts first, and if you reply to someone then chances are good they're still here and can answer you if they want to :)

Angelus
26-05-09, 00:44
How does it clutter the forum if one thread is long buried and another thread is created?

Draco
26-05-09, 00:49
A forum I frequent for a prominent game, automatically locks threads after 90 days of inactivity. If a new thread crops up after that, its fine. They generally only lock duplicates that are all active at the same time.

Frankly, I can only see two legitimate reasons to keep old threads:

A) Historical value - in which case autolocking is just fine

B) To keep new threads from being repetitions of the old threads - which would be the only reason not to autolock a thread.

TRF seems to want the threads for historical value, but does nothing to protect them from 'thread vandalism'.

So either reverse the necro rules or autolock after a certain timeframe. Nothing else makes sense.

Catracoth
26-05-09, 00:52
I make a thread on boogers today and 4 months from now you make a thread on boogers. Yours stays open.

No. I make one in four months, mine gets closed and redirected to yours. You made one first, hence being the original thread. All duplicates following that should be locked.

Interesting subject to use though. Bonus points for that.

A forum I frequent for a prominent game, automatically locks threads after 90 days of inactivity. If a new thread crops up after that, its fine. They generally only lock duplicates that are all active at the same time.

That's a more logical method than what this forum has. It doesn't make sense for members to be reprimanded for "bumping" an old thread and instead should make an entirely new one just because one is a month or so old. Nonsense.

Ward Dragon
26-05-09, 00:54
So either reverse the necro rules or autolock after a certain timeframe. Nothing else makes sense.

Autolocking makes sense. I'll ask if it's possible :)

Mr.Burns
26-05-09, 00:59
now search through just the first two pages in the first two threads and see that some of the same members have contributed to both debates. seems to me like they were still around to defend their same views as before :pi:

Not always spike. Some threads have been bumped that were dead for a year or more. Regardless, A decision to close a thread wouldn't be something I would take likely. I did give it a fair consideration but personally, if a thread has been active within the last 90 days, I didn't see any reason to have a duplicate thread. But as I have also said, I did take into consideration the content of the thread.

spikejones
26-05-09, 01:02
Angelus:
(sorry guys)
It makes clutter on the server. wasted space in the database etc. from a viewer standpoint I can understand that it makes no difference which one of the threads is located on the first page, and which one is located on the back page. But from a technical POV, having multiple database entries for the same topic is ... irrational.


No. I make one in four months, mine gets closed and redirected to yours. You made one first, hence being the original thread. All duplicates following that should be locked.

Idealism that is, reality it is not.


Interesting subject to use though. Bonus points for that.

its a metaphor