Should old posts die?

[panerai]

A number of times I have read posts (including one a few minutes ago) as it was at the top or close to. Only to check the date of the actual post to find them a number of years old and OP long gone.

This was originally posted in 2007 and because someone replied to it. It was back to the top of the list. OP last posted in 2009

A number of forums I go to do not have the jump to the top function. Once the post moves on. It's no longer relevant.

Is it necessary to revive dead posts?

DON

 

[Chris101]

Sometimes, it's just irritating - especially if you are the recent poster, but you realize the age only after you hit the Post button! However, in other cases, having a historical perspective is important. A topic can lie dormant for a year or four, only to be suddenly important again. In these cases it is useful to be able to post directly into the pertinent thread.

So no, the utility outweighs the irritation in my opinion.

 

[swoop]

I come upon old posts when researching some things like compatibility issues or differences between lenses in a series, that sort of thing, so old posts are really helpful and I think they should stick around but maybe with some sort of archive expiration date after which it's searchable but no longer postable.

 

[Sid836]

Also, instead of throwing out a question under a topic that has already been opened in the past is always better than opening a new thread for something that has already been under discussion in the past. Makes it kind of more organized.

 

[Grahamb]

Time's change, our idea's change, what was once a great move may turn out not to great a year down the road, in that your valued opinion is of good use to the new op.

 

[nikon_sam]

I keep old photography magazines because the information in them is still relevant...
The same goes for old threads in RFF...
Raid started a thread back in 2008 "Weekend Photography Plans: What are you up to?"
It's still going...so do we just eliminate it because it's old...???

 

[Chris Bail]

Die? No.

Close and archive after a period of inactivity? Perhaps.

My $.02

 

[Frank Petronio]

I think the large format photo forum has some sort of mission statement about being a reference for future generations so they can study primitive film users.... something high minded like that.

However, we should be responsible and weigh whether all the blather would do more harm than good to future generations? I tend to think we ought to wipe the entire Internet out and start over, so go for it! But instead, a mission statement will probably be written.

Isn't the physical location of the host servers in California? Only an earthquake away from being a non-issue.

 

[citizen99]

Sometimes, it's just irritating - especially if you are the recent poster, but you realize the age only after you hit the Post button! However, in other cases, having a historical perspective is important. A topic can lie dormant for a year or four, only to be suddenly important again. In these cases it is useful to be able to post directly into the pertinent thread.

So no, the utility outweighs the irritation in my opinion.

+1 +characters

 

[sevo]

In general, most threads are peacefully dormant, or only are posted to again if someone has something new and on topic to contribute. But there are a few cases of frequently resurrected zombie threads where it might be nice if the admins closed that particular thread for further responses.

What bugs me far more are never-expiring polls - long-dead polls that have just been voted on often make up dozens of the new, unread post list, due to votes cast by new members that haven't contributed anything else and don't seem to return to the site ever again. At least poll starters might make their polls expire after a reasonable time (i.e. days to weeks) - but it would be even nicer if the forum software could simply disallow non-expiring polls, and forcibly expire all the past ones dangling around...

 

[Dwig]

Personally, I vote for a 3rd option, that old posts become "locked" preventing new replies but not deleted or hidden. "Old post" being defined by the age of the last reply. After some dormant period without new replies (30 days, 60 days, ... ??) the thread becomes locked.

That way, no info is lost. Anyone wanting to resume the conversation can start a new post and link to the old. This would make it obvious to others what is new and what is ancient.

 

[Brian Legge]

No. I've intentionally replied to threads which were years old because the post made sense in the context of the thread. It keeps information consolidated rather than ending up with a bunch of fragmented threads linking back to a single old thread.

If the concern is someone accidentally replying, I'd prefer a warning or message on screen about no responses in the last X months.

The knowledge here (and on other sites dedicated to older gear) are invaluable for those in the future. Its great research material.

 

[Keith]

I find discovering that someone has responded to a six year old thread that's been lying dormant quite amusing ... and harmless.

So no ... there's little enough fun around here! 🙂

 

[johannielscom]

Haven't looked at the poll results yet. My bet: people want the old posts to remain.

They are a nostalgic bunch here, the general perception translates to 'old = good'.

😀


EDIT: well whaddayaknow, I was right. 😛😛😀

 

[sreed2006]

Everybody makes mistakes. Replying to a five year old "Which camera should I buy?" thread is embarrassing, but not fatal.

It would be great if the internet had started in the 1950s. That way I could get more information on some of my old cameras and about old film. Some of that knowledge is lost forever, which is sad because they took some great pictures back then.

I voted No.

 

[FrankS]

Absolutely not. Old posts are our history.

 

[btgc]

Should we eliminate elder people because they aren't new anymore?

 

[back alley]

if you're really that concerned…maybe just take personal responsibility and check the damn date of the frst/last post in a thread before you reply.

 

[68degrees]

A number of times I have read posts (including one a few minutes ago) as it was at the top or close to. Only to check the date of the actual post to find them a number of years old and OP long gone.

This was originally posted in 2007 and because someone replied to it. It was back to the top of the list. OP last posted in 2009

A number of forums I go to do not have the jump to the top function. Once the post moves on. It's no longer relevant.

Is it necessary to revive dead posts?

DON

I never understood why it bothers some to reply to old posts. New , Old, who cares as long as someone is interested in it. Its new to someone. What harm does it do? There is no old and new, there is exists, does not exist. Old and new is just an illusion. This is especially ironic on a site that esteems old and vintage cameras, film photography etc.

 

[oftheherd]

I never understood why it bothers some to reply to old posts. New , Old, who cares as long as someone is interested in it. Its new to someone. What harm does it do? There is no old and new, there is exists, does not exist. Old and new is just an illusion. This is especially ironic on a site that esteems old and vintage cameras, film photography etc.

I like that answer.