Bump or Start New Thread?

[drewmm]

I've seen people yelled at both for bumping an old thread to discuss a topic, and bringing up a topic in a new thread which has been discussed already in older threads.

 

So what should newbies do? Start a new one, or bump the old one? Or, once something has been talked about once, is it now taboo?

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Guessing that an old thread would be a year or more old, it doesn't make much sense to respond to a question posed by somebody that was a n00b then. Most probably because they aren't still listening, ya know.

 

Yet, the same question posed by a n00b today is a valid question and they expect an answer, or two, or three.

 

Be that as it is... I haven't noticed the yelling.

[drewmm]

Not necessarily questions, but topics of discussion.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4358927

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4348561

 

Other examples, I'm sure. Perhaps not yelling (what does that really mean on the internet anyways?) but certainly being chided by more experienced posters.

[+StarBrand]

I think it is appropriate to bump up threads from the past 6 to 9 months (last posted in) as long as they are closely on topic. However, dredging up a thread from a few years back generally doesn't add much. Time to start a new one - perhaps with a reference to the older one.

 

Also appropriate to start a new thread when you are twisting from the original topic of a thread or if the old thread has lost its way and is way off topic.

[drewmm]

What do people have against bumping old threads, though?

 

EDIT: And, for that matter, what do they have against replicating threads? There's no rule that you have to read every thread that shows up in the forums...

Edited June 6, 2010 by drewmm

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4358927

Exactly (↑) what I spoke about in my previous post. Do you think that the OP is still waiting for the answer?

 

 

As to the other thread, I believe the all-seeing-eye-mutt (that's where the link steered me) was tossing up a tongue-in-cheek reference suggesting that a mod close the thread -- but it really doesn't matter because it was in Off Topic (and he knew that because it was an Off Topic thread). I found a small chuckle in it.

 

Is just how I see the differences.

[drewmm]

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4358927

Exactly (↑) what I spoke about in my previous post. Do you think that the OP is still waiting for the answer?

 

 

As to the other thread, I believe the all-seeing-eye-mutt (that's where the link steered me) was tossing up a tongue-in-cheek reference suggesting that a mod close the thread -- but it really doesn't matter because it was in Off Topic (and he knew that because it was an Off Topic thread). I found a small chuckle in it.

 

Is just how I see the differences.

 

I didn't interpret the first thread as attempting to answer the OP specifically, but to discuss a topic generally so the information was out there.

[+BulldogBlitz]

basically... if you use search, and any thread comes up, you should read that thread. you may not respond to that thread. if your question wasn't answered in that old thread, too bad. you may not start a new thread because it would be repeating a topic.

 

 

do what you want. if all you are doing is bumping old topics just for the sake of bumping them.... watch out.

 

"old" being something more than 4 hours old.

[+Vater_Araignee]

If a thread that is asking a question is a year or older, don't answer it, leave it alone.

Unless it has turned into a general discussion on the subject and your adding your 2¢.

But please don't respond to the original post. I mean do you honestly believe the OP has been hanging on a year for your answer?

If you have the same question, then bump the thread but state in the bump that there is not a satisfactory answer.

Data thread are fine to bump if your adding data or trying to get the OP to update.

 

There are many many more of us who would rather see a bump than a new thread covered by hundreds of threads already.

I bet we outnumber the anti-bumpers.

[drewmm]

The different opinions here seem to prove the point perfectly.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Spend enough time here and you will see that there is nothing new under the sun.

 

Very few topics have not been thoroughly discussed before.

 

Very few of us have changed our minds on a topic since we last posted an opinion.

 

Bumping the old thread retains the history of the conversation.

 

All of the above considered there's not much sense in starting new threads when old ones exist.

[+BlueDeuce]

What do people have against bumping old threads, though?

 

EDIT: And, for that matter, what do they have against replicating threads? There's no rule that you have to read every thread that shows up in the forums...

 

Well if you are posting a new thread when the same topic is right there at the top maybe you should have at least perused a few of them first, eh?

 

Posting and you

 

edit: missing d

Edited June 7, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[drewmm]

Spend enough time here and you will see that there is nothing new under the sun.

 

Very few topics have not been thoroughly discussed before.

 

Very few of us have changed our minds on a topic since we last posted an opinion.

 

Bumping the old thread retains the history of the conversation.

 

All of the above considered there's not much sense in starting new threads when old ones exist.

 

So you disagree with all the people who get upset when threads are bumped?

 

What do people have against bumping old threads, though?

 

EDIT: And, for that matter, what do they have against replicating threads? There's no rule that you have to read every thread that shows up in the forums...

 

Well if you are posting a new thread when the same topic is right there at the top maybe you should have at least perused a few of them first, eh?

 

Posting and you

 

edit: missing d

 

Fair enough, but the "you should have looked at the other threads" issues are rarely when another thread is at the top. It's generally when the old thread is buried on page 13, but all the oldbies remember it because they were there for that discussion.

[BCProspectors]

Why do Geocachers always like to endlessly discuss these silly little things?

[drewmm]

Why do Geocachers always like to endlessly discuss these silly little things?

 

Why do people like to respond to threads they're not interested in?

[+brslk]

Why do Geocachers always like to endlessly discuss these silly little things?

 

Why do people like to respond to threads they're not interested in?

 

People reply to things that they have an opinion on even if their opinion is to say silly things.

 

[drewmm]

Why do Geocachers always like to endlessly discuss these silly little things?

 

Why do people like to respond to threads they're not interested in?

 

People reply to things that they have an opinion on even if their opinion is to say silly things.

 

 

Even if their opinion is that the topic isn't worth having an opinion about?

[+brslk]

Why do Geocachers always like to endlessly discuss these silly little things?

 

Why do people like to respond to threads they're not interested in?

 

People reply to things that they have an opinion on even if their opinion is to say silly things.

 

 

Even if their opinion is that the topic isn't worth having an opinion about?

 

That's just going to make me wanna talk about philosophy.

[+d+n.s]

I'm a long time member of another forum and the general rule there is, "if its more than a couple months old start a new thread. When in doubt, start a new thread."

But things run a little faster over there with a larger member count and really heavy moderation (banning people who don't read the OP before hitting reply for example changes the dynamic a lot and tends to make the subtle differences between several similar threads mor interesting)

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Why do Geocachers always like to endlessly discuss these silly little things?

Because it's not a silly little thing; it has a lot to do with how a forum 'feels'.

 

This one feels pretty tacky at times, for example, when somebody bumps an old thread they get fussed at. When they start a new thread about something that has been discussed before they get jumped on for not looking for an existing thread before posting. It's a can't-win situation that affects the 'personality' of this forum.

 

The 'rule' on bumping vs. starting seems to change at will.

 

I can't decide if no one here read Catch-22 or if everyone did!

 

As I said earlier, it's a rare thread that has anything new to offer, so I am in favor of bumping the old one when it exists.

[drewmm]

This one feels pretty tacky at times, for example, when somebody bumps an old thread they get fussed at. When they start a new thread about something that has been discussed before they get jumped on for not looking for an existing thread before posting. It's a can't-win situation that affects the 'personality' of this forum.

 

The 'rule' on bumping vs. starting seems to change at will.

 

+1

[+BulldogBlitz]

I'm a long time member of another forum and the general rule there is, "if its more than a couple months old start a new thread. When in doubt, start a new thread."

But things run a little faster over there with a larger member count and really heavy moderation (banning people who don't read the OP before hitting reply for example changes the dynamic a lot and tends to make the subtle differences between several similar threads mor interesting)

 

when the subject of the forum is dull... dry... or uninteresting, i could see how heavy moderator influence would be good. some of the best parts of forum life is NOT reading the OP and just flying off the handle in the wrong direction.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I've been on forums since before the Web existed... back then, we called them "Usenet Groups."

 

In general, it's a good idea to search the forum to see what has been discussed before. If you don't find an answer to your question, then start a new thread... but in your original post, mention your search, and what specific information you are lacking.

 

For example, someone recently asked "Im wanting to hide a cache underwater but im not sure what the best way to do this is. Id like to be able to retrieve it without getting wet. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated!"

 

I posted links to previous conversations. He chided me for being snarky, and said of course he had Googled it but still wanted to know something more specific.

 

Well, in his original post, he should have said "I've already read <whatever thread>, but I still need to know <some specific question>. We can give more useful information if we have some idea of what you already know, and what additional information you need.

 

So, to answer your question:

 

1) Don't bump Really Old threads. (What constitutes "Really Old" is subject to debate.)

 

2) If you're starting a new thread to ask a question, let us know that you've already done some homework, and be specific.

[knowschad]

I've seen people yelled at both for bumping an old thread to discuss a topic, and bringing up a topic in a new thread which has been discussed already in older threads.

 

So what should newbies do? Start a new one, or bump the old one?

Neither?

 

OK... that was just a joke.

 

It is a tough call, but I think that a little discretion can be used to answer most situations.

 

Re-opening an old thread to respond to one of the previous posts... don't do it. Odds are that those posting to the old thread don't care any more. You may very well get yelled at.

 

Re-opening an old thread to add some truely useful new information to a topic that is still current, I think that would be appreciated by most.

 

Starting a new thread and linking to the old thread as a reference is sometimes a good way to handle it.

 

At least, those are my thoughts on it, FWIW.

[+d+n.s]

Because it's not a silly little thing; it has a lot to do with how a forum 'feels'.

 

This one feels pretty tacky at times, for example, when somebody bumps an old thread they get fussed at. When they start a new thread about something that has been discussed before they get jumped on for not looking for an existing thread before posting. It's a can't-win situation that affects the 'personality' of this forum.

 

The 'rule' on bumping vs. starting seems to change at will.

+2

 

when the subject of the forum is dull... dry... or uninteresting, i could see how heavy moderator influence would be good. some of the best parts of forum life is NOT reading the OP and just flying off the handle in the wrong direction.

sure! Still, watching people go down in flames is half the sport too.

Testing the limits is the third half of the sport

OT Gaf aint't dry

[drewmm]

I've been on forums since before the Web existed... back then, we called them "Usenet Groups."

 

In general, it's a good idea to search the forum to see what has been discussed before. If you don't find an answer to your question, then start a new thread... but in your original post, mention your search, and what specific information you are lacking.

 

For example, someone recently asked "Im wanting to hide a cache underwater but im not sure what the best way to do this is. Id like to be able to retrieve it without getting wet. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated!"

 

I posted links to previous conversations. He chided me for being snarky, and said of course he had Googled it but still wanted to know something more specific.

 

Well, in his original post, he should have said "I've already read <whatever thread>, but I still need to know <some specific question>. We can give more useful information if we have some idea of what you already know, and what additional information you need.

 

So, to answer your question:

 

1) Don't bump Really Old threads. (What constitutes "Really Old" is subject to debate.)

 

2) If you're starting a new thread to ask a question, let us know that you've already done some homework, and be specific.

 

This seems like good advice...if you approach forums as merely an FAQ bank. But if you view forums as a community, it makes for a pretty boring community.

[+wimseyguy]

The answer is, it depends.

On how long the old thread has been off the front pages.

On how hard you looked for a similar thread using the wonderful search engine in the forums (seriously-use google to search them-it's much better.)

 

But what is truly sad is someone who keeps bumping their own thread to try to keep it in front of uncaring eyes.

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

So, to answer your question:

 

1) Don't bump Really Old threads. (What constitutes "Really Old" is subject to debate.)

 

2) If you're starting a new thread to ask a question, let us know that you've already done some homework, and be specific.

 

This seems like good advice...if you approach forums as merely an FAQ bank. But if you view forums as a community, it makes for a pretty boring community.

 

Only if you assume that the only topics for discussion are the ones that have been talked to death already.

[4wheelin_fool]

I'm planning on bumping this thread in a few years..

[drewmm]

 

So, to answer your question:

 

1) Don't bump Really Old threads. (What constitutes "Really Old" is subject to debate.)

 

2) If you're starting a new thread to ask a question, let us know that you've already done some homework, and be specific.

 

This seems like good advice...if you approach forums as merely an FAQ bank. But if you view forums as a community, it makes for a pretty boring community.

 

Only if you assume that the only topics for discussion are the ones that have been talked to death already.

 

Some of the most interesting ones, maybe. If there was a discussion about cool caches on mountain peaks three years ago, it would be much more interesting for new players to either continue the old thread or start a new one than to just read the old topic. If the old players don't want to discuss it again, it's very easy to ignore the thread.

 

I'm planning on bumping this thread in a few years..

 

You should.

[+Chokecherry]

I really liked that thread that was bumped not long ago about ruins found while caching. There are some threads like that that don't need to have new ones I think (cool cache containers comes to mind as well).

[TheHunterSeeker]

Some folks will just complain to complain, so you can't win.

Don't let them with no life run yours.

 

 

Oh TOP!

[+roziecakes]

I am a moderator on another non-geocaching related forum. It may not apply here, or maybe it will, so I'll mention it:

 

Old threads that remain interesting over time, like the 'Cool Cache Containers' thread, or the 'I want a cool avatar' thread are relevant over time, and get bumped because people enjoy looking at them no matter how old they get.

 

Threads with questions that get asked all the time need not be bumped, nor do they necessarily need to be added on to because the thread just gets longer and longer and not everyone wants to pick through it, plus certain info changes over time with site updates, guidelines changes, etc.

 

I would say if you have a question, read through the threads for the last week or so to see if someone has asked it very recently so that duplicate recent threads don't happen; since the search function doesn't work well you might not be able to find older threads using it.

 

If you don't see what you want to know, start a new thread.

 

Hope that helps

[+simpjkee]

I would suggest the search button before starting a new thread, but the search function on this board stinks and a newbie would end up in the same quandary trying to decide if they should post a new thread or bump and existing thread about how the search function stinks.

 

I will suggest that during the quandary, the potential thread starter peruse the first page and the stickies at the top of the forum to see if their question has already been asked or answered.

 

I will suggest that moderators stay relaxed. I've been on a lot of message boards and experience shows that there is a natural flow to message boards. The mods should chill out unless they just have to intervene. The people will "decide" how the board should flow. If people want to bump threads...let them do it! If people want to start new threads...let them do it! Lately, I can always tell when a certain moderator signs on because a ton of threads are moved all around the different forums (a lot of the moves are really unnecessary). Then you have mods telling people "Don't bump old threads" and "Don't post duplicate topics". There's a point where the mods stop being helpful and start being annoying and causing more confusion than solving it.

 

Since signing up on this board in April 2007 it has always teetered on that threshold. Half the time it is leaning to the relaxed side. The other half it is really unnecessarily strict. Lately it's been sliding towards the annoying, strict, confusion side and in my opinion this thread is good evidence of it.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I would suggest the search button before starting a new thread, but the search function on this board stinks

 

but Google works fine. Just put "site:forums.Groundspeak.com" in the Google search box, and then add whatever keywords you want to look for.

[+simpjkee]

I would suggest the search button before starting a new thread, but the search function on this board stinks

 

but Google works fine. Just put "site:forums.Groundspeak.com" in the Google search box, and then add whatever keywords you want to look for.

 

People keep suggesting that. I am aware of it. However, the problem is the forum search feature. There shouldn't be a reason to need to go to Google to do something that the forum should already effectively be doing.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I would suggest the search button before starting a new thread, but the search function on this board stinks

 

but Google works fine. Just put "site:forums.Groundspeak.com" in the Google search box, and then add whatever keywords you want to look for.

 

People keep suggesting that. I am aware of it. However, the problem is the forum search feature. There shouldn't be a reason to need to go to Google to do something that the forum should already effectively be doing.

 

So you can use what works, or you can complain about the broken site search. Your choice.

[knowschad]

I would suggest the search button before starting a new thread, but the search function on this board stinks

 

but Google works fine. Just put "site:forums.Groundspeak.com" in the Google search box, and then add whatever keywords you want to look for.

 

People keep suggesting that. I am aware of it. However, the problem is the forum search feature. There shouldn't be a reason to need to go to Google to do something that the forum should already effectively be doing.

 

So you can use what works, or you can complain about the broken site search. Your choice.

The problem is that many people don't know about the site: search. I know of some forums that actually use Google's site: search on their site as an alternate to the standard forum search. Groundspeak could easily alter the search page to make that an option.

 

Google search does not have the options that the built-in site search has, though, so it isn't always a good alternative. It also messes with the forum's thread layout... something that also confuses newbies that will then come here and post a duplicate thread or resurrect an old one asking why they now see the forums in outline mode.

[+simpjkee]

I would suggest the search button before starting a new thread, but the search function on this board stinks

 

but Google works fine. Just put "site:forums.Groundspeak.com" in the Google search box, and then add whatever keywords you want to look for.

 

People keep suggesting that. I am aware of it. However, the problem is the forum search feature. There shouldn't be a reason to need to go to Google to do something that the forum should already effectively be doing.

 

So you can use what works, or you can complain about the broken site search. Your choice.

 

When something that should work effectively actually works like carp, complaining about it is reasonable.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I'd rather see a new thread started. Mainly because I've been on various forums forever and I can't tell you the number of times someone has zombied a long dead thread and I'll start reading it from the beginning, not noticing the dates.

Then, when I read something that sets me off and I'm all set to go into battle, I'll see that the thread/reply is three years old and I get all sad inside, denied the opportunity to verbally chastise someone severely on the internet (and it's much worse when I don't catch the date and submit a reply)

[4wheelin_fool]

I'd rather see a new thread started. Mainly because I've been on various forums forever and I can't tell you the number of times someone has zombied a long dead thread and I'll start reading it from the beginning, not noticing the dates.

Then, when I read something that sets me off and I'm all set to go into battle, I'll see that the thread/reply is three years old and I get all sad inside, denied the opportunity to verbally chastise someone severely on the internet (and it's much worse when I don't catch the date and submit a reply)

 

+1

 

I completely agree with this.

[+OZ2CPU]

man you are funny :-)

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I'd rather see a new thread started. Mainly because I've been on various forums forever and I can't tell you the number of times someone has zombied a long dead thread and I'll start reading it from the beginning, not noticing the dates.

Then, when I read something that sets me off and I'm all set to go into battle, I'll see that the thread/reply is three years old and I get all sad inside, denied the opportunity to verbally chastise someone severely on the internet (and it's much worse when I don't catch the date and submit a reply)

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Oh...I see what you did there

[+Dan2099]

Bump.

[+ras_oscar]

I care not a bit whether I get yelled at or not. If I ask a question It's because I am looking for information that i don't have. Of course my first stop is to do a forum search for similar previous threads. With so many people of various backgrounds it's almost inevitable that I will offend someone. So long as offense was not my intent (I am not a troll) I just move along.

[knowschad]

I've seen people yelled at both for bumping an old thread to discuss a topic, and bringing up a topic in a new thread which has been discussed already in older threads.

 

So what should newbies do? Start a new one, or bump the old one? Or, once something has been talked about once, is it now taboo?

 

The ones that generally "get yelled at" are when somebody responds to an old post in an old thread. If somebody started a thread two years ago, asking, for example, what people thought of a certain GPS, and today somebody posts to that thread with their opinion of that GPS... odds are the OP no longer cares. (actually, in that example, it is possible that somebody else might find it helpful, but I think you get my drift).

[knowschad]

http://forums.Ground...p...t&p=4358927

Exactly (↑) what I spoke about in my previous post. Do you think that the OP is still waiting for the answer?

 

 

As to the other thread, I believe the all-seeing-eye-mutt (that's where the link steered me) was tossing up a tongue-in-cheek reference suggesting that a mod close the thread -- but it really doesn't matter because it was in Off Topic (and he knew that because it was an Off Topic thread). I found a small chuckle in it.

 

Is just how I see the differences.

 

Huh? Somebody actually took one of my posts seriously? I'm shocked.

[knowschad]

I'd rather see a new thread started. Mainly because I've been on various forums forever and I can't tell you the number of times someone has zombied a long dead thread and I'll start reading it from the beginning, not noticing the dates.

Then, when I read something that sets me off and I'm all set to go into battle, I'll see that the thread/reply is three years old and I get all sad inside, denied the opportunity to verbally chastise someone severely on the internet (and it's much worse when I don't catch the date and submit a reply)

 

+1

 

I completely agree with this.

Dang it... you got me! Fell for it hook, like, and thinker.

[+Dan2099]

Bump