Reviving old threads

[Charles Anthony]

What do you guys think about reviving old threads to support a new discussion that arises from a currently active thread? instead of starting a new thread?

If I want to expand on an issue (but after doing a search, I find the issue was already began in an old thread) I would rather revive an old thread instead of rehashing a new one.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

If I want to expand on an issue (but after doing a search, I find the issue was already began in an old thread) I would rather revive an old thread instead of rehashing a new one.

I wish more people would do this, rather than clutter up the board with multiple threads of the same topic.

For example, there are currently 9 threads on 'native issues', and all of them are pretty much on one topic.

[betsy]

I dunno. When I see the initial posting dated like say jun 24 04, I just automatically don't feel like bothering. It means having to read most, if some of the whole thread just so to ensure not to be redundant with what we say. But then, of course it can't be helped to end up re-hashing old povs.

I think I prefer a fresh thread. That it exists in the past...actually makes a very interesting comparison if for whatever reasons, views had actually changed from then.

[Leafless]

I dunno. When I see the initial posting dated like say jun 24 04, I just automatically don't feel like bothering. It means having to read most, if some of the whole thread just so to ensure not to be redundant with what we say.

Exactly, who wants to read 20 or more old post to ensure it wasn't said before.

Anyway times change so do events making the old post obsolete with like what Betsy says including new and different views.

[scribblet]

Dear Charles Anthony,

If I want to expand on an issue (but after doing a search, I find the issue was already began in an old thread) I would rather revive an old thread instead of rehashing a new one.

I wish more people would do this, rather than clutter up the board with multiple threads of the same topic.

For example, there are currently 9 threads on 'native issues', and all of them are pretty much on one topic.

I think I would prefer a new thread (depending on how old the old thread is.

I was going to suggest that maybe there should be a separate forum for native issues, they really seem to be taking over the whole forum.

[Charles Anthony]

I was going to suggest that maybe there should be a separate forum for native issues, they really seem to be taking over the whole forum.

I agree. I think you have hit on a seriously good suggestion.

Those topics are worthy of a separate category. We should make the suggestion to Greg.

[scribblet]

I was going to suggest that maybe there should be a separate forum for native issues, they really seem to be taking over the whole forum.

I agree. I think you have hit on a seriously good suggestion.

Those topics are worthy of a separate category. We should make the suggestion to Greg.

I will email him now.

[betsy]

I was going to suggest that maybe there should be a separate forum for native issues, they really seem to be taking over the whole forum.

Yes!

[Greg]

While I agree that there are too many (duplicate/related) threads dealing with Native issues, i don't think it warrants a section devoted entirely to Native issues.

However, once the redesign of MLW is completed (I've announced this before), which means an overhaul of the forums, I will consider these types of issues. We hope to have the redesign completed in the next few months.

[scribblet]

Thanks - a few months - bummer.

[Greg]

Thanks - a few months - bummer.

I agree. Believe me, no one wants this restructure/redesign completed more than I. I spent a great deal of time managing this site, and once the redesign/restructure is completed, a lot of those tasks will be automated and streamlined. That way I'll be able to spend more time on alternative projects that will bring more traffic and publicity to this site.

We're close, very close to being finished. The design of the new site is completed, we're just waiting on a few things relating to the content management system. Once that is completed and the content is migrated over to the new system, we'll all basking in the glory of the new site.

[geoffrey]

Thanks - a few months - bummer.

I agree. Believe me, no one wants this restructure/redesign completed more than I. I spent a great deal of time managing this site, and once the redesign/restructure is completed, a lot of those tasks will be automated and streamlined. That way I'll be able to spend more time on alternative projects that will bring more traffic and publicity to this site.

We're close, very close to being finished. The design of the new site is completed, we're just waiting on a few things relating to the content management system. Once that is completed and the content is migrated over to the new system, we'll all basking in the glory of the new site.

No rush Greg, we all appreicate the time you put into providing such a forum for us to discuss the issues. I'm sure we all eagerly anticipate the new design/layout/forum.

[cybercoma]

A mod or admin can merge threads, but that would mean reading through all the topics all day long and Greg has a life.

[betsy]

There was a forum that had an interesting set up. It had a compilation of threads filed by the year. I think they kept as far back as they've started.

It served as a nostalgic look back as to what was "hot" and how views were in what year.

[Charles Anthony]

Let us take it there for now and try to examine it in that perspective.

Hey CA, what's with this habit of yours of flitting from thread to thread. Can't you just carry on a discussion where it happens? Jumping from a specific topic to a general one with hundreds of accumulated ancient-history posts makes it very difficult to follow the discussion.

Soon after I joined this forum but not soon enough, I discovered the Search function. However, the search function is not the best, as discussed here:

forum Search function -- can it be better?

I learned to appreciate the vast wealth of knowledge contained within the "hundreds of accumulated ancient-history posts" in this forum. After starting my own threads and arguing various positions, I found that previous threads and previous discussions of which I was being repetitive. Here is an example that spooked me:

Abolish legal marriage -- perfect solution to treating everybody equally

A New Approach To Marriage -- (warning: harebrained scheme)

Furthermore, I found myself discussing points of view with other members who seemed to feign ignorance -- yet they were presented the exact same arguments in the past. I did not know whether they were being disingenuous or not. Thus, I asked about how these situations of overlapping topics should be handled.

makes it very difficult to follow the discussion.

It also makes it difficult for people to contradict themselves or create run-around discussions.

By the way, what is with all of your anti-Bush threads?

Bush1

Bush2

Bush3

Bush4

Did I forget any? Oh! yeah! amalgamated-Bush5

[White Doors]

By the way, what is with all of your anti-Bush threads?

Maybe he's a left footer? Do you have a problem with that?

[Greg]

What do you guys think about reviving old threads to support a new discussion that arises from a currently active thread? instead of starting a new thread?

This is a case where the forum member needs to exercise some judgment about whether it is better to revive the original thread or to start a new one. Of course, if the original thread is only a few weeks/months old, you would obviously revive the thread. However, if the original thread is old enough that many of the issues have changed, and or the thread is so long that the original issue isn't even being discussed anymore, then by all means start a new thread.

It is everyone's responsibility to check to make sure the issue is not already being discussed - and so you'll need to do a quick search of the forums to make sure you have not missed anything. However, I'm not entirely sure the problem here is duplicating older (out-of-date) threads, but rather members starting multiple threads on the same topic. Charles has pointed this out, and I think we all have to do a better job at avoiding muddying the forum with duplicate discussions.

I do understand that the search function of the forums is a bit wonky - I'm doing my best to find another solution. In the mean time, try your best to make it work and in a month or so when the new forum is up and running you can search to your hearts content.