Necroposting - Let's Discuss!
In this week alone, I've seen a few topics created that were basically duplicates of similar posts from several months back. In all of those cases, a faithful forum user dug through the site and listed the original post, thus bringing it back to life. From my understanding, a lot of forums tend to discourage reviving old threads as it clogs up the newer posts with "old news".
I can see the pros of reviving the fallen comrade. Everything you need to know about a certain question or idea is found in one convenient spot. On the con side, some people don't feel like sifting through pages and pages of old posts and would rather just hop into a conversation. I've also noticed it segments the discussion - the new thread that has been linked to the old one still gets posts and then the old one gets a few. It basically turns things into a bit of a mess.
I wish I had some elegant solution that just worked but... I don't. I personally lean more towards just letting a new topic get created instead of bringing up old ones. Hopefully I'm not stepping on the toes of any moderators by bringing this up, I just figure this issue may start growing as we do.
So what would be the best course of action here?
It really depends on an individual level.
However if there is already a topic for a game and another person creates a topic. it's generally best practice to move as many posts as possible (can't move the OP unfortunately) to the general topic and delete the new topic.
Do you have specific examples of what you're talking about or does that cover it?
@tokeeffe9 For instance, the thread created this week called, "Acclaimed Games You Dislike." It was quickly pointed out a similar topic had been created in January. A topic like that will probably come up more times in our future. I agree with games, one topic is plenty. Just wanted to know if there was something we should be following for more generalized discussion. Basically, does linking to the old thread actually benefit the conversation or hinder it? In this case, it seemed to work against it, but maybe there just wasn't interest in the first place.
ib0show last edited by
@SabotageTheTruth The topic I linked wasn't the first time the topic came up and in that topic an older thread was linked. I was just pointing out that there have been discussions before.
@SabotageTheTruth Ah right, I totally get you.
I think in that case you're right. I haven't looked at the topic personally but linking an old topic in that case will realistically only stifle conversation.
It does depend how old and active the previous and current topic are but I think if 3-6 months have passed and this new topic is busy, it's best to maintain the new topic and lock the old one.
I'll try to improve on this more in future.
jipostus last edited by jipostus
I dug up my old topic for Quake Champions as the last weeks closed beta started, and kinda turned into the somewhat official topic for it. I can edit the main post to represent the overal game coverage more, but at the moment I don't feel like others here are that interested at all in it, so I don't feel the pressure for doing it.
@jipostus That's fine. Whenever I see a topic like that, I try to help in making it 'official'. That will remain the main discussion for that game.
jipostus last edited by
@tokeeffe9 Truth to be told, I almost made a new topic, but then I remembered that I made a topic for it a while ago, (longer while than I first thought), and dug that up for it, because I felt that even back then people weren't THAT interested in it. I do understand that majority here who do play shooters will stick to something else than Quake, because the offering is pretty darn great, but I do personally prefer these more "old school" arena shooters, if I'm going to play competetive FPS games, though I'm not that much a competitive person myself, so...
But back on the topic at hand, I feel like it should be considered a case by case basis. Sometimes a fresh start would be better for getting a fresh mindset on a topic, but it also would be nice to have a all the "same discussion" under the same topic, instead of having it scattered on several topics.
@ib0show Oh, I know, I'm just wanting a little clarity.
I imagine we'll continue to grow (hopefully) and with those new users comes questions that may have already been answered. I just like order in this chaotic world. I'm just glad our community isn't really strict with that sort of thing, seeing as how apparently other forums will take actions including bans for it. Thank both of you for taking the time to answer!
Haru17 last edited by
There's also the Monster Hunter thread Ben started that has gone neglected for months because — out of the last 3 games — the west has only seen Cross release last July. It gives me the prompt if I type a reply there. So, if the urge strikes to ramble about Monster Hunter — as it often does — should I start a new thread or just add on to that?
@Haru17 well Ben's topic is specifically about the monster hunter community.
So if you need help or want to make a group (whatever ye monster hunter folk do) than that's the topic to talk in.
If there is a new game out then by already a new topic to actually discuss about that game.
Brannox last edited by
Just a bizarre idea, but much in the vain of the Hall of Fame subforum, could a new one be created along the lines of "Archived" where threads of an arbitrary age that have a set post count (For example, if a thread is at least 6 months old with 50 or 75 posts) could be moved so new users or current ones wondering if a topic has been created can search this database to prevent such things? Probably a bit too much work, and the numbers provided were pulled out of thin air, but I thought it could help provide an idea of how to handle it.
@Brannox Well all that would really do is put them into another channel. I don't think it'd necessarily resolve anything as it's still up to the user to actually search for that topic.
Brannox last edited by
@tokeeffe9 Fair point, just thought it would cut down search time. But thanks for the feedback!