RE: Posting just to post (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

heartcream -> RE: Posting just to post (6/21/2010 12:45:42 PM)

I dont care. All the forum rules mostly bore me. I can figure shit out for myself. If I accidently post in an old thread it is not anything I get worked up about. As far as relevant threads goes, sometimes threads seem interesting to me other times not at all.



tazzygirl -> RE: Posting just to post (6/21/2010 12:48:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarlingSavage

The deliciously divine Miss Divi has spoken!


Fixed it for ya!



divi -> RE: Posting just to post (6/21/2010 12:51:09 PM)

aww ty tazzy sweetie

( hopes I don't get a ticket from the post police )



DomImus -> RE: Posting just to post (6/21/2010 1:54:11 PM)

I have added to resurrected threads because I don't look at dates and didn't realize the thread had been in moth balls. I don't resurrect old threads myself. I have long advocated some forum mechanism that automatically retires and locks old threads after a set period of dormancy. As far as posting just to post goes that is certainly not limited to the resurrection of dormant threads. There are new threads every day that could easily fit into that category.



mnottertail -> RE: Posting just to post (6/21/2010 1:55:43 PM)

Jesus is gonna be a little disconcerted with your views on resurrection, unless I miss my guess. 



LafayetteLady -> RE: Posting just to post (6/21/2010 6:42:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: divi
My opinion is people who care about shit like this have way too much time on their hands. I think its time to sign off if this irks you. (imo)


Well, thankfully, your opinion means squat to me, along with your snarkniness.

To be clear, resurrecting an old thread when you have something to add really isn't the issue. But when I see a couple dozen threads that are appearing as "new" because someone posted, only to find out that the person had nothing to say but "good post," it is annoying.

Then again so are the people who post just to be bitchy, but that's another thread.



Jeffff -> RE: Posting just to post (6/21/2010 6:48:35 PM)

I know that opening old threads "isn't done"... but annoying?...really?



laurell3 -> RE: Posting just to post (6/21/2010 6:49:45 PM)

I don't know if you realize thiat LayfayetteLady but you really don't come much differently than the person you just slammed. (well except she's funny and being humorous).



LadyPact -> RE: Posting just to post (6/21/2010 7:01:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus

I have added to resurrected threads because I don't look at dates and didn't realize the thread had been in moth balls. I don't resurrect old threads myself. I have long advocated some forum mechanism that automatically retires and locks old threads after a set period of dormancy. As far as posting just to post goes that is certainly not limited to the resurrection of dormant threads. There are new threads every day that could easily fit into that category.

I'm just curious on this, since it does seem like a pretty good solution.  The only problem would be you couldn't update the thread if the time had lapsed.  Like if a verdict comes in on a trial that was mentioned in Politics and Religion or somebody did find a solution to the problem that they came here for and six months later wanted to say things were going well.



WyldHrt -> RE: Posting just to post (6/21/2010 7:28:59 PM)

The board I used to belong to had a request in the forum guidelines that, rather than necro an old post, the user start a new one with a link to the old, as LP mentioned.
The 'annoyance' for me is when someone writes out a thoughtful caring reply that obviously took time to do, without realizing that the thread is months or even years old. 



laurell3 -> RE: Posting just to post (6/21/2010 7:43:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus

I have added to resurrected threads because I don't look at dates and didn't realize the thread had been in moth balls. I don't resurrect old threads myself. I have long advocated some forum mechanism that automatically retires and locks old threads after a set period of dormancy. As far as posting just to post goes that is certainly not limited to the resurrection of dormant threads. There are new threads every day that could easily fit into that category.

I'm just curious on this, since it does seem like a pretty good solution.  The only problem would be you couldn't update the thread if the time had lapsed.  Like if a verdict comes in on a trial that was mentioned in Politics and Religion or somebody did find a solution to the problem that they came here for and six months later wanted to say things were going well.



Well and the reality is if you have a new thought or event on topic of that thread that's a few months old, and you start a new thread on it, you will get responses indicating hey, we already discussed this. I'm not sure what the harm is in opening up an old thread with new thoughts. I do agree opening up old threads to say "yeah great post" is ridiculous, but then again people new to the boards don't know how the system works, it's not the end of the world.



SirsJewel -> RE: Posting just to post (6/21/2010 8:15:30 PM)

My earsssssssssssss are ringing, lol ~ jewels



LadyHibiscus -> RE: Posting just to post (6/21/2010 8:16:01 PM)

What Laurell said. How often does some new person start a new thread when there was a similar discussion half a dozen times already? Back in the day when LA was Links Queen, it was great, she would just nail em with a macro and all would be well.

If a thread comes up and is a few pages old, I really don't look at the date, I just figure I missed it the first time, and if I have something to add, I post.



dcnovice -> RE: Posting just to post (6/21/2010 8:30:08 PM)

I'll post my thoughts in six months.



cloudboy -> RE: Posting just to post (6/21/2010 9:00:28 PM)


There's two way to look a thread bumping:

(1) The past is irrelevant and has nothing to offer us today;

(2) Posting on an old thread might meaningfully bring it back to life -- let the readership decide if they want to go there or not.



January -> RE: Posting just to post (6/22/2010 7:26:16 AM)

I groaned when I saw the old Subjim thread magically reappear.

My thought was, please, please, lets not rehash that anal bleaching stuff again!

My take is: resurrecting an old thread is not a big deal, (and responding to a new-old one is perfectly acceptable), but that's not really what happened here.

Many, many threads on a whole slew of random topics were reborn. I'm assuming the bumping was just to give the newbie a thread count of hundreds in a matter of days or hours (and perhaps in her mind--instant kink-cred). We'll have to see why that's so important to the thread bumper.

January



SirsJewel -> RE: Posting just to post (6/22/2010 9:30:48 AM)

Here's a simple solution, since i own a group that does nothing but post and comment threads...... remove the old ones manually like i do when they are over a certain period of time and dead. Yall reallyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy debate the crap outta needless stuff on here at times,just saying~ jewels


P.s . It was me who did this trying to be friendly to the OP to show i read them ,every single thread i might add, not to get rid of my ice cream cone, lawdy~ jewels



LadyHibiscus -> RE: Posting just to post (6/22/2010 9:33:09 AM)

I love that EVERY DAMN THING is out there in the database.

I waffle over the thread necro thing. On the one hand, there were some great posters on here years ago, and re-reading their stuff is cool. But what if someone necro'd taptaptap?? Can we AFFORD to lose that much of our lives again?? [:(]



juliaoceania -> RE: Posting just to post (6/22/2010 9:34:55 AM)

quote:

remove the old ones manually like i do when they are over a certain period of time and dead.

There is valuable insight in those threads you are advocating they discard... it seems more reasonable that when you are in Rome, you do as the Romans do...



SirsJewel -> RE: Posting just to post (6/22/2010 9:56:45 AM)

Then "if" a person such as me read then ,found her value in them i simply said ty i read it~ jewels



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875