Question about the culture on this forum
  • MichaelDickson
    Posts: 419
    Some seem to dislike the reviving of old discussions. Others seem happy to do it.

    I'm curious to know what participants here think. I'm not trying to start a fight (please!), just wishing to know whether there is view on the matter that is widely held (by participants here), and what are the reasons for (or against) it.

    Disclosure: My opinion is that if a discussion is worth continuing, it doesn't much matter when it started, but then again I revive old discussions for a living, so I'm biased.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,944
    My take:

    If a discussion has been dormant for a while, I prefer that a new discussion is created and that the creator of the new discussion link the old one. That shows a clear awareness on the creator's part that you are not really continuing a dormant conversation, but creating a new conversation that has some reference to the prior conversation.
    Thanked by 2MichaelDickson chonak
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,046
    I'm fine with continuing old discussion threads. Things change, new people join the forum, etc. etc. New threads that duplicate material that's been discussed to death before? Notsomuch.
    Thanked by 2MichaelDickson canadash
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    Especially for those of us relatively new to the Forum, we may find as we research ideas and conversations here something that we want to contribute to, or something that we can contribute to, and the previously held discussion serves as a reference to the comment we'd like to make. This is frequently the reasoning behind why I resurrect old threads: I find something relevant to an issue I'm having personally or something that I'm currently researching, and I'd like to make a comment that hasn't been made yet, but in order to do that, I have to bring up the old conversation, complete with the previously held discussion, which is important because it serves as a point of reference for the comment that I'm adding. Also, it can frequently be used so that I can garner the opinions and sometimes be pointed in the right direction from other people here who have more experience than I do.
    Thanked by 1MichaelDickson
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,159
    I agree with the position that old threads are good to take up again.

    The search facility can be used to find things, so the title and other content in a thread are no distraction.

    I value having earlier discussions brought before my eyes: I've learned from this many times.

    I enjoy reading earlier opinions of long-time contributors, including how their style has changed.

    If possible (Richard?) I'd like to see "restarted" threads marked as such, for a while when restarted. And or a visual marker in the stream if there's a gap of more than say a year.
    Thanked by 5MichaelDickson melofluent CHGiffen CCooze M. Jackson Osborn
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,295
    My opinion is that if a discussion is worth continuing, it doesn't much matter when it started,


    Agreed.

    I don't mind a bit if old discussions get bumped. I often learn a lot from re-reading (or reading for the first time) old discussions. It's easy to look at the time-stamp and see when the discussion began.
    Thanked by 1MichaelDickson
  • MichaelDickson
    Posts: 419
    I'd like to see "restarted" threads marked as such, for a while when restarted. And or a visual marker in the stream if there's a gap of more than say a year.


    That suggestion strikes me as an excellent feature, although having once in my life written code for a living, I know that it is easy to dream up 30 hours of coding in 10 seconds.

    Or, depending on how the code for the forum is written, it could be a trivial thing to implement.
    Thanked by 2M. Jackson Osborn Jahaza
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,500
    One of the problems that happens when old threads arise anew is that in some cases, quite a few related discussions have happened in the interim.

    Which isn't to say that revisiting old discussions is a mistake. Just to mention that there can be some need to play catch-up.
    Thanked by 4eft94530 MichaelDickson CHGiffen CCooze
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    I am usually one of the one to point out that it has been SOME NUMBER OF YEARS since the original conversation.

    I don't mind bumping a thread in theory, or for some particular reason.

    But there are a lot of SEVEN YEAR OLD THREADS which get revived in order to add one random, hardly needed comment, as if the conversation was still current. It's like standing in a hotel ballroom hours after the cocktail party has concluded and just announcing to the darkness: "Actually I think Mahler is far superior!"

    I honestly think that many people don't even notice that the threads are as old as they are.

    I would say --- be aware that you are bumping thread from X NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, acknowledge it, and mention why you want to resurrect the conversation.
    Thanked by 8eft94530 melofluent MichaelDickson chonak barreltone Ben rogue63 CHGiffen
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,957
    I agree with Adam. I recall one time I was about to answer a question but was so interested in the recent digression it took a while to realize the thread was from 2009.

    There are certainly interesting things that can be added. But there also threads that as Adam mentioned hardly need reviving. Please, if you are going to make a substanstial contribution acknowledge the bump first. Or start a new one and link the relevent thread(s).

    It would be nice to see the original post date before clicking...
    Thanked by 3M. Jackson Osborn MichaelDickson CCooze
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    May I suggest a distinction?

    (1) If a thread is devoted to the search for specific information, it benefits from being kept together. That helps later information seekers find what they are looking for.

    (2) In threads devoted to the airing of opinions, adding a second or third round of comments often leads to confusion. For this type of thread, I like Liam's proposal above: to start a new thread with a reference to the old one.
    Thanked by 3MichaelDickson eft94530 CHGiffen
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    I agree with all who suggest that old threads should be labelled as such. I have a number of times gotten excited about something and then noticed it was not just old, but really old. And not only really old, but passe. I think that the date of origin should appear beside the thread author's name so that one can beware of it before even clicking onto it. I have experienced few, very few, old threads that really warranted being dug up after two years, let alone (as sometimes happens) four, five, or more. There are, though, some brilliant exceptions.
    Thanked by 2MichaelDickson CHGiffen
  • bonniebede
    Posts: 756
    I have something pertinent and witty to say about this, but I will be waiting for seven years to add it as a comment. See you then.
    Thanked by 5Spriggo Jani CHGiffen Adam Wood Blaise
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,694
    If only I could bump this thread...
    http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/9456/adeste-fideles-reharmonization/p2
    Thanked by 2BruceL Adam Wood
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,500
    Hmm. Not exactly our finest hour....
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    I had forgotten this one. Just as well, I suppose. The bad thing about bringing up old posts is that many are no longer relevant. Also, some participants have moved on and haven't posted here in years. Perhaps R.I.P. is a good approach to threads several years old.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,944
    Oh, *that* thread....reminds me of an infamous BBQ thread on Chowhound (where the hosts were cooking ribs as the main dish, and invited guest to bring sides of choice, and one of the guests insisted on bringing ribs and that they were better than the hosts'...)
    Thanked by 1Salieri
  • Daniel Bennett PageDaniel Bennett Page
    Posts: 833
    I'm concerned that Chonak's suggested definitions and practices are practical and very reasonable. Is that really how we want to represent ourselves to the world?
    Thanked by 4Andrew_Malton Kathy CHGiffen MatthewRoth
  • JaredOstermann
    Posts: 483
    I often find threads via google, when looking for some specific piece of chant or specific liturgical question. It's interesting to me how often a MusicaSacra thread is the first hit on google. For that reason, a lot of times I will go to a very old thread. If there is new information, it's much better to add it to that thread than start a new discussion. Also, certain threads are seasonal (I know I'm guilty of resurrecting the "lights during the Easter Vigil" thread in at least two different years!).
    Thanked by 3Andrew_Malton bonniebede MichaelDickson
  • MaryAnn Carr WilsonMaryAnn Carr Wilson
    Posts: 1,738
    Thanks to the OP for bringing up this question of old threads.

    I have the same experience as Jared concerning searching on Google, and I know my choir members have mentioned this use of the forum as well. When info is still relevant... and old thread can be very helpful.

    The info vs opinion threads, and acknowledging gaps in time, seem like reasonable points to me.

    It's a forum, so it's at least partly place for opinions. Still, looking at old threads makes me think I can go on an opinion diet, offering my take in small amounts, and that forum members and seekers of good will might be better served.
    Thanked by 1MichaelDickson
  • Bobby Bolin
    Posts: 417
    Maybe close the old threads but leave them available to searches?
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    I feel as though this topic has been cover'd once before.
    http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/9963/resurrecting-old-threads/p1
    Thanked by 5MichaelDickson CHGiffen eft94530 Arthur Connick Richard Mix
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
    I am glad we do not purge Discussions.
    And matthewj, thanks for hilighting "that" Discussion.
    As they say, you cannot make up stuff like that.

    The author arrival and stay and departure happened
    during a hectic time in my life and I missed all of it.
    So, early this morning during insomnia I read all thirteen discussions.
    CMAA folks are the best. The comments made me burst out laughing a lot.

    Maybe Jeff O or somebody else
    can create a youtube cartoon episode for each of those Discussions?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    In threads devoted to the airing of opinions
    ha! we don't air our opinions here!!! ha... ha.... ha ha ha.
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,152
    Cringes waiting for lightning to strike (Purple)
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • Blaise
    Posts: 439
    I don't remember ever seeing the OP of the "Adeste Fidelis Reharmonization" thread on this forum. I must have gone into hiding or something that month, since I thought I kept tabs on all the controversial topics (*purple font from "since...." onward*).

    *I am on an Android and am currently too lazy to re-look up the proper procedure for purple fonting.*
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    That was a classic thread, and owes some of its memorable character to the OP, who (credit where it's due) did show a sense of humor, among other traits.
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • Scott_WScott_W
    Posts: 468
    My two cents: as long as it is not rude, toxic, wildly off-topic, or obscene, let people post where and what they will.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • Bobby Bolin
    Posts: 417
    I feel as though this topic has been cover'd once before.
    http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/9963/resurrecting-old-threads/p1


    The irony!
    Thanked by 1Kathy
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    I think I will revisit this topic time and time again, as it is a universal one.
Add a Comment