Jump to content
noumpere

Reviving dead threads

Do you think threads should lock after a certain time?  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think threads should lock after a certain time?

    • Yes - After 3 months
      5
    • Yes - After 6 months
      5
    • Yes - After 1 year
      2
    • No
      8


Recommended Posts

I think we are promoting the same thing: the forum being a learning space for umpires to support and connect with each other as part of their development as they progress in their goals of being the best umpire they can be. 

However, you will never know how many people have left the forum due to the way people reacted to the inquiries because, well they will just leave. I hope a Internet Forum's goal like this one is to be welcoming to all, and the only reason for being ejected is because a poster committed one of the four "P"s. 

I just can't figure out what reviving old threads comes under. It's not physical, not profane, not personal, not persistent. But hey, I did learn something from this Forum. 

 

 

Bringing up something from the past could fall under persistent.. Anyone have a rule cite or interp for that?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kylehutson said:

FTFY

(ducks)

In all seriousness, the problem isn't people adding new ideas or asking for clarification. The problem is people jumping on old threads and saying "I agree with @XXXXX", and adding no new information. This is why I always lurk for a couple of days before posting on any new forum.

And the latter happens 99.9% of the time an old thread is revived.

 

To someone else who seemed confused (or maybe it was me, reading through a prescription-drug-induced-fog) about searching and zombie threads -- the old threads aren't deleted, they are just closed.  All the information is still there, and should still be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, noumpere said:

The problem is that they all show up as "new" as soon as someone re-posts, so "not reading" isn't an option (I don't know not to read it until I've read it).

That' a fair point with respect to the way the forum (and other forums) currently work.

It seems pretty easy to address with any of these tactics:

  • Put the date of the original post in the unread view.
  • Allow a user to select an option for how old a thread can appear in his unread view.
  • Add a "Dead Horse" button, which allows a user to stop seeing a specific thread in his unread view.

I mean easy in the sense that the forum software guys should do that.  If I were Warren, I would use the features available to me.

There's no reason for anybody to get bent about this.  The people who want to post in and read in old threads should be able to configure their accounts to do so.  And the people who don't should be able to configure their accounts accordingly.

 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, BCBrad said:

Talk about a double-bind, especially for new people on the forum. 

The princesses complain when someone does not search for an existing thread, then they complain about reviving dead threads. Enough to turn out new members. 

I think to support and develop umpires, whether it be in Florida, Newfoundland and Labrador (got to add both now), Alaska, Arizona, or for me, British Columbia, the forum should foster a dialogue and inquiry about things that are relevant to anyone's stage of umpiring. They may not know that the princesses feel the topic has been beaten like a dead horse. It's new to them and they are looking to learn and connect, not to feel unwelcome into the fraternity. It's bad enough they get battered for wearing navy and heather, affording a $60 chest protectors and not knowing the difference between R1, B (P3) and FED/OBR

For the regulars, be understanding and supportive. The newbie you are ostracizing might be your partner one day. Instead of zombie threading the person, may be ask a question that can lead to a learning moment for another umpire. 

Announcement; Princess responding......

Firstly, the person who posted this query is not a moderator. However, is a very tenured and respected member of this site.  Does that make him a princess?  I guess you'd have to clarify the  "princess" stuff for us @BCBrad  I'm sure Warren, the owner of the site @Umpire in Chief would be interested as well.  He must be a princess too?

I don't think anyone is ostracized by re-hashing an older thread.  Actually, I think we'd all prefer it that way.  I'd also like to see where and when this happens?  I read the forum quite a bit and don't recall this.

If you think that asking someone to search is ostracizing, I think you're highly mistaken.  It's always done with good intention and what it encourages is keeping good information in ONE location.  This helps EVERYONE, ...new and old, on this site, keeping info organized.  Nothing more, nothing less.   I'll use a member as an example @stkjock.   He was a newbie not too long ago and I helped him utilize the search button and find stuff he was looking for.  We had personal messages back and forth and he understood perfectly what I was asking of him, and he learned to navigate the site better, and made it work for him.  No ostracizing involved.

From what I see, ....it appears that the "princesses" are handling things just fine in this regard ......

Princess .... out :wave: 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stkjock said:

not sure to feel ostracized or flattered at your comments Jeff...  :lol:

....trust me, huge compliment! :nod: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

Announcement; Princess responding......

Firstly, the person who posted this query is not a moderator. However, is a very tenured and respected member of this site.  Does that make him a princess?  I guess you'd have to clarify the  "princess" stuff for us @BCBrad  I'm sure Warren, the owner of the site @Umpire in Chief would be interested as well.  He must be a princess too?

I don't think anyone is ostracized by re-hashing an older thread.  Actually, I think we'd all prefer it that way.  I'd also like to see where and when this happens?  I read the forum quite a bit and don't recall this.

If you think that asking someone to search is ostracizing, I think you're highly mistaken.  It's always done with good intention and what it encourages is keeping good information in ONE location.  This helps EVERYONE, ...new and old, on this site, keeping info organized.  Nothing more, nothing less.   I'll use a member as an example @stkjock.   He was a newbie not too long ago and I helped him utilize the search button and find stuff he was looking for.  We had personal messages back and forth and he understood perfectly what I was asking of him, and he learned to navigate the site better, and made it work for him.  No ostracizing involved.

From what I see, ....it appears that the "princesses" are handling things just fine in this regard ......

Princess .... out :wave: 

Are you disagreeing with me or agreeing with me?

We both agree that this is a valuable learning space for umpires to develop their ability as a umpire. You have said that you prefer new people to re-hash an older thread to assist in their understanding and grow in their work on the field. Thus, my statement does not apply to you. You welcome people using the best thread possible to solve their existing desire to learn about a facet of umpiring. We agree. 

However, many people in this thread seem to ignore my comments on working to creating a learning space for all to develop and progress as umpires, and support that life-long striving to being the best we can be. I believe this means being understanding when someone may want to inquire about a subject that others feel are closed. I think that someone selectively reading another person's thread is not welcoming, especially when their comments are being used in a ostracizing manner. A Princess is someone you can never please; you are in trouble no matter what you do. That was my original point. If you read the statement before, I set the context by saying it feels like a double-bind -- a no-win situation. That is Princess territory.

As to the OP, I would hope that people would be understanding that people do not see the world like you do. Just as Thunderheads may not see the world like I do. Hopefully, the lively dialogue will evolve into a growing resolution where we feel that we have learned and shared from each other. In the end, people have grown to respect the insight that was shared. Thus, I would like people to be able to take something that may be a year or two years old and refresh it to engage the wealth of knowledge of this forum to support in their own differing progress as an umpire. That is why I voted never. Even with equipment, some people may be getting used equipment because they are just starting and may be wanting some longitudinal information of the gear.  Everyone is different and the more diverse umpires are -- socially, culturally and personally -- the better we all are as umpires.

Sorry man, you are not a princess. May be your family thinks otherwise, but you do not fit my criteria. I hope I have understood your post and not put words in your mouth. Please do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BCBrad said:

Are you disagreeing with me or agreeing with me?

We both agree that this is a valuable learning space for umpires to develop their ability as a umpire. You have said that you prefer new people to re-hash an older thread to assist in their understanding and grow in their work on the field. Thus, my statement does not apply to you. You welcome people using the best thread possible to solve their existing desire to learn about a facet of umpiring. We agree. 

However, many people in this thread seem to ignore my comments on working to creating a learning space for all to develop and progress as umpires, and support that life-long striving to being the best we can be. I believe this means being understanding when someone may want to inquire about a subject that others feel are closed. I think that someone selectively reading another person's thread is not welcoming, especially when their comments are being used in a ostracizing manner. A Princess is someone you can never please; you are in trouble no matter what you do. That was my original point. If you read the statement before, I set the context by saying it feels like a double-bind -- a no-win situation. That is Princess territory.

As to the OP, I would hope that people would be understanding that people do not see the world like you do. Just as Thunderheads may not see the world like I do. Hopefully, the lively dialogue will evolve into a growing resolution where we feel that we have learned and shared from each other. In the end, people have grown to respect the insight that was shared. Thus, I would like people to be able to take something that may be a year or two years old and refresh it to engage the wealth of knowledge of this forum to support in their own differing progress as an umpire. That is why I voted never. Even with equipment, some people may be getting used equipment because they are just starting and may be wanting some longitudinal information of the gear.  Everyone is different and the more diverse umpires are -- socially, culturally and personally -- the better we all are as umpires.

Sorry man, you are not a princess. May be your family thinks otherwise, but you do not fit my criteria. I hope I have understood your post and not put words in your mouth. Please do the same.

Your description of "Princess territory" is understood, however, .... initially it reads as if you're calling the staff here on UE "Princesses". Thanks for clarifying.   The problem with these types of forums is that no one is every 100% happy, .... ever, but that's just the way it is.

You, nor I put words in anyone's mouths.  I think there just needed to be clarification, which we have.  Thanks for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, maven said:

I think this thread might be dead.

I plan on responding in November and reviving it :D

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we're reaching the end of life for this thread a few things:

  1. While it shows noumpere as the thread starter, I started the thread by moving the first few posts in this thread from another.
  2. Here are my thoughts:
    • Overall I'm indifferent to closing or not closing the threads after some period of time. I've intentionally always left them open.
      • Pros to closing
        • Dated information does not reappear
        • Can generate new activity on the site
      • Cons to closing
        • Members can get irritated seeing a old thread revived.
        • Can be frustrating to new members who took the time to search out something. 
        • Sometimes old information can become relevant again at a future date.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my .02

 

 what's worse to the membership?

 

The same topics brought up in new threads multiple times or an older thread revived?

 

each board has a different personality, on a automotive site I admin, bumping an old thread is the desired method, the members will rip on a newbie who posts a question that has been answered over and over again....   

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, stkjock said:

my .02

 what's worse to the membership?

The same topics brought up in new threads multiple times or an older thread revived?

We need not choose, as we have both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, stkjock said:

my .02

 what's worse to the membership?

The same topics brought up in new threads multiple times or an older thread revived?

each board has a different personality, on a automotive site I admin, bumping an old thread is the desired method, the members will rip on a newbie who posts a question that has been answered over and over again....   

Yes.  ;)

That is, both are (imo) breaches of what should be forum etiquette.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, maven said:

We need not choose, as we have both.

By locking up old threads it eliminates one issue.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stkjock said:

By locking up old threads it eliminates one issue.  

Only if it's automated. I mod a couple forums and I wouldn't spend the time going and looking for old threads to lock up. It's just not worth the time. I wouldn't want the mods here to have to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2016 at 4:13 PM, maven said:

That's a fair question. My answer is also a question: meaningful to whom?

Forum members stop discussing questions for a number of reasons, especially when it has been answered, when we've reached impasse, or when we get bored. New posters who come along almost never add value to old threads.

If one in a thousand had something valuable to add, the poster could open a new thread referencing the old one. That does not seem to be an undue burden, at least not until we begin to run out of threads.

To me for one.  I have been calling baseball but this is my first year doing high school.  I read threads and may or may not have a question about something I read.  Keeping threads together makes more sense than not.  Afterall, if two threads are started with similar info, are they not merged?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...