Should Threads Be "Un-bumpable" After A Time?

[kurfu.5623]

Contributing something useful to a discussion should always be allowed, even if the discussion is an old one.

 

However, "bumping" a thread (without actually adding useful to the discussion) just to put it back on the front page should at least get you a warning from the mods.

[Umut.5471]

No because if there's already a thread for it, opening another would fill the forum with duplicate threads. And if it doesn't go up, then no one can notice and write comments to it. It would be pointless to write a reply to a dead thread.

 

Single thread with more activity makes it easy for Arenanet too. They can distinguish trending gamer opinions/ideas easier. They merge those duplicate threads about the same topic already.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

Fascinating stuff, and didn't even intend this to focus on super old post "necro-ing." The major concern so far is for bugs which makes sense if they're still prevalent, so you could in theory not apply it to bug threads. But I'd want the "un-bumpable" apply equally regardless of discussion/poll/QA as laid out in the poll. Someone else can inquiry into unequal application of this idea if they wish. Ain't got time for that.

 

Lastly, I do not have any confirmation if ANET marks threads as "un-bumpable" already behind the scenes.

 

Thanks bebes.

 

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

>

> > P.S., why you can't preview polls? Because Idk

>

> You can, just choose show results. When you are ready to vote, click on hide results and then you get the vote option back.

>

 

More so I wanted to check if the hyperlink worked or not. It did, so no worries.

 

> @"Zedek.8932" said:

> Posts are not yogurt - they don't expire. Also, when I google things and I get "Do not bump /closed" and can straight `history:back` in my browser I always wonder why? Apparently the thread is not done when someone has to add something. It makes sense to have all the information in one thread, not several ones. The rest should do the forum moderation.

>

> Scenario: I needed a few info how to set up a DOS game. The thread was from 2004, some guy in 2009, 5 years later, posted: "I have downloaded DOSBOX, can you [the thread creator who was a very good and helpful mate in that matter] me too?" and some mod came in an barked "THREAD NECRO. WARNED AND CLOSED" and I had to figure it out myself. (If everthing was as easy as the soundcard's IRQ)

>

> Excelsior.

 

Reminds me of some Adobe debugging forum threads. Hue hue hue.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> Fascinating stuff, and didn't even intend this to focus on super old post "necro-ing." The major concern so far is for bugs which makes sense if they're still prevalent, so you could in theory not apply it to bug threads. But I'd want the "un-bumpable" apply equally regardless of discussion/poll/QA as laid out in the poll. Someone else can inquiry into unequal application of this idea if they wish. Ain't got time for that.

 

Curious, what is your perspective on the topic?

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > Fascinating stuff, and didn't even intend this to focus on super old post "necro-ing." The major concern so far is for bugs which makes sense if they're still prevalent, so you could in theory not apply it to bug threads. But I'd want the "un-bumpable" apply equally regardless of discussion/poll/QA as laid out in the poll. Someone else can inquiry into unequal application of this idea if they wish. Ain't got time for that.

>

> Curious, what is your perspective on the topic?

 

The perspective that triggered this was after reading this [thread](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/21673/blocking-forum-users/p1 "thread") that wanted to request blocking users in order to reduce forum "dominance." I suspect they were speaking of a specific person. You could argue this poll sought to test a possible answer without just censorship, or enabling blocking. Not necessarily about necro-post concerns.

[Leo G.4501]

Ah, that thread. My opinion on that one is I don't think it'd be a problem with giving users more control; more control of what they want to look at, remove what they don't, who they want to listen to, etc. Like I wouldn't mind an option to just block poll threads. Granted, I probably wouldn't use it but knowing I have the option so I don't see so many useless polls wouldn't be a bad thing.

 

Regarding the OP and within the context of what you mentioned, I'm not sure it's viable to limit players except to a certain amount of threads posted in a given time and not being able to bump threads likely wouldn't improve that situation (someone can just keep making threads, but at least it wouldn't be perpetuated by others posting in the thread).

 

Again, I feel more controls would be the best solution, perhaps to even include now seeing old threads bumped.

[Ardenwolfe.8590]

Yes, after a month with no further responses, a thread shouldn't be necroed.

[Goettel.4389]

No necro nerf plx! ;)

[TwinFrozr.6214]

Of course not! If the thread is still relevant, which it obviously is to anyone searching for, reading and replying to it, no matter if it's a minute or 10 years later; it should still be open for new replies. I don't get the point of posting new threads of the same topic over and over again (which in the end lead to more mod work, as they have to be merged together anyway) :anguished:

[Ben K.6238]

I see what you did there.

 

There can occasionally be some point in reviving an old thread, but it comes with a few problems:

 

* Topics may be irrelevant or out-of-date after updates in the interim - for example all those threads requesting mounts before PoF

* People quote and respond to posts made months or years ago, when the authors may no longer hold those views, or may not be around to comment

* "I'm having this problem too" posts about a bug or issue that was fixed years ago, in which case a new thread should be started - it's almost always a different problem

 

There are examples where it makes sense - for example [this thread on home instance libraries](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/18406/suggestion-home-instance-library-storage-for-books "https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/18406/suggestion-home-instance-library-storage-for-books") where the feature being requested hasn't been added yet and would still be useful. But I see an awful lot of examples such as [this thread on a technical issue](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/2199/stuck-at-white-screen "https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/2199/stuck-at-white-screen") where posting in a thread that's nearly 2 years old is no use to anyone - the original poster will almost definitely have solved it, quit the game, or both by now.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

Strange that the two above would post in this thread after a year (or more). I wonder why this transpired? Nevertheless, I find this amusing considering the topic of the thread.

 

@"TwinFrozr.6214"

@"Ben K.6238"

 

D:

[TwinFrozr.6214]

> @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> Strange that the two above would post in this thread after a year (or more). I wonder why this transpired? Nevertheless, I find this amusing considering the topic of the thread.

>

> @"TwinFrozr.6214"

> @"Ben K.6238"

>

> D:

Thanks for the question :)

 

So our conclusion is, if the thread hasn't been active in one full year, the poll becomes invalid and the issue is solved automatically? That's just Reddit mentality. I prefer threads left untouched, whether or not it's written this or that long ago (to a limit of course; if it's about outdated builds, bugs, sales etc, then there's a legitimate reason for trashing them... but not for a poll that's eternally relevant to any functional forum in existence).

 

Three posts ago, I got warned for "bumping" a thread which was still highly relevant to me. Since I don't want to leave the forum, I searched it in hope to improve myself and prevent this from happening again. This thread showed up, and I felt just as obliged as you to share my opinion (which, realistically, should not be less valid because of my reply taking longer time than yours).

 

Besides that, I've actively stayed out of this forum over the last 2-3 years, to avoid posting because of earlier experiences. That's why I failed noticing and replying to this topic until today.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Some threads are, if the Moderators feel it is warranted. You can post in them, but they will never 'bump'.

[Gop.8713]

This actually is a good question. Ppl complain about necroed threads, but frequently the same ppl complain about posters who create a new thread instead of posting in an existing one. So there must be some sort of expiration date in the mind of the complainers . . .

[Game of Bones.8975]

I've seen Forums where stagnant threads were around for years. It felt cluttered.

 

As if Moderators didn't have enough to do, I think they need to weed out/merge old threads.

 

If there aren't enough Moderators, "promote" some of the better posters (not me) to point out threads to merge or delete. They wouldn't do the deletion, just point them out.

[Blude.6812]

I chose other, the other being that anet should remove the poll option, so there would not be anymore polls. Just about all of them, if not all of them are just a waste of time and generally devised by people that really don't think

[EmmetOtter.8542]

After a specific number of days of **inactivity**, like 30, necroing a dead thread won't bring it back.