|
LafayetteLady -> RE: Deleted my profile! (2/14/2013 3:01:02 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Extravagasm
quote:
Lynnxz: You know, I find "OMG, YOU DID THIS AND IT IS AGAINST THE RUELZ, LETS ALL TELL OP ABOUT IT IN MULTIPLE POSTS!!" Much, MUCH more irritating
Yup, multiple rubbing it in. And been around to see a bunch, Lynnxz.
You've mucho, admirable experience under your belt. . . (I knew at age 7, but wish I'd gotten active as early as you. Wish the best.)
No it isn't rubbing it in. Often, you will see that many people were posting at once, so there is overlap.
quote:
quote:
TheLilSquaw to OP: I found at least 1 necro post that you brought up from 2004 yesterday.
quote:
LafayetteLady to OP: you have acted all innocent about the necro threads and "hoping" you didn't do anything like that.
Couple sensible things:
1) Using the term 'necro' to explain TOS violations to newcomers can add brief confusion (w/necrophilia).
2) I can't think of a more innocuous newbie error, than posting to old threads.
"Necro" can refer to many things other than a desire to fuck dead people. Have you heard the term, "necrotic?" (sp?). "Necro" refers to anything dead.
quote:
The error can be based on mistakenly seeing forum resources as enhancing info . . . rather than contemporary conversations, which they are. Seeing forum info, as wiki which it isn't . . . rather than blog, which it is.
Problem is: CM actually likes it both ways. We're supposed to refer 1st-time posters to former threads, to learn things (as if it were reliable, correctable wiki). And heaven forbid someone begins a new thread for things covered in older threads (again, as if former threads are well-established info, rather than questioning conversations).
Yesterday a Financial Domination thread came up for the upteenth time. While everyone was bemoaning its futility, along comes a poster who informs us of its genesis from prior century kinky male accountants in Britain (Snidely Whiplash version). Tell us, was that not a worthwhile update? LOL
Happy Valentines All, even to Snidely.
I am going to assume that you have spent 9 years reading and only began posting recently. Do you realize how many pages of a section someone needs to go through to go back 9 years? The posts the OP brought back from the dead weren't all similar in that they would come up in a search. Even then, they were subjects that would be many pages along in the search. So really, yes it IS very annoying and unnecessary when someone revives an old thread. It is more so when they post something that was repeated throughout the discussion or something stupid, like "I agree with the others."
For active posters (and I have been here since 2004, although under a different name), you see the same thing over and over, and we tend to read the majority of posts that show as being active (being in bold). So opening something and thinking it is a new conversation when in reality, it is very old, is annoying.
|
|
|
|
