Bumping of Old Threads

[jay611]

Please do not bump old threads as they push the new ones down, and onto other pages causing members to have to search through the old topics to find the newer ones.

What is considered and old thread? if it hasn't been replied to in over a month, it is an old thread.

How can I ask my question without bumping the thread? Start a new one.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Jason Underwood
Newport News, Virginia
CSX Peninsula Sub MP.16
Jay611@cox.net
[a
href="http://railsintheeast.tripod.com/"]http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t66/BCR2014/rnte2.jpg[/a]

[pstraten]

Thanks, Jason.

I don't mind a month old, but a year or two or more is getting routine anymore. If you just have to let everyone know everything, you can always just add a link to the thread that sparked your question.



PaulS

[inflammable]

I disagree with you about your blanket approach to old threads.

Occasionally a thread, up to a year old, will come up, the members who posted on it that long ago are still around, and the new post adds to, or inquires about the same subject. Why should that one be locked? Forums are meant to share information, and it would be helpful to have it all in one place.

What's next, automatic deletion of all threads over two months old?

James

[TrainFanAmtrak]

I think that after last post that was made more than a month ago the post should be locked or it could go to an achieved area if we had one.

[NorthShore_364]

>I disagree with you about your blanket approach to old
>threads.
>
>Occasionally a thread, up to a year old, will come up, the
>members who posted on it that long ago are still around, and
>the new post adds to, or inquires about the same subject. Why
>should that one be locked? Forums are meant to share
>information, and it would be helpful to have it all in one
>place.
>
>What's next, automatic deletion of all threads over two months
>old?
>
>James

I agree with James. While there certainly are times when there's no reason to bump an old thread, much of the time it is far more appropriate to post in a older thread rather than clutter the forum with another new one. Out of all the forums that I am on, this is the only one where people care at all about the age of a thread, it's not considered a problem on most other forums.

Austin
http://www.trainweb.org/asni/KRBanner.jpg
Keystone Rails Assistant Webmaster/Photographer

[Erick_Cantu]

Once is one thing, when we have members bumping several old threads every day, things need to change. That's one of the reasons why it's such an issue here - the number is greater than on any forum I have visited anywhere. It's better to sacrifice a few old threads than deal with the greater clutter of ten of them bumped from the same person in one day at nearly the same time!

[inflammable]

I'm not suggesting that no threads should be locked, just that some sense should be used before locking them. Our fearless moderator here will seemingly lock a thread base ONLY on the date, most likely without even reading the new post for content.

All I'd like to see is some discretion used, which, in the past, there hasn't been any.

James

[agentatascadero]

This, to me, is a most confusing thread. And yes, I agree that this forum is unlike any other I know. It has always seemed odd to me that threads are not universally arranged in order of most recent submission. I think it proper for active threads to appear first ahead of threads which have been inactive for extended periods, and like the suggestion that old threads go to an archive page. AA

[cbq311]

You can re-arrange them by topic, author, date, etc. look at theline above the first topic and you can click on them and set it up how you want it.

[John 136 6000 GO]

It's quite a while since I've visited here, let alone posted a comment.

Back some time ago, when I was a regular reader and sometimes posting, there was a phenomenon whereby someone would move a thread up the priorities by simply posting the one word "Bump" - sometimes it was just the heading, with no body.

While this may be tolerable if done to a topic which has had no reply for a few days (especially if no replies at all have been posted to the original question), I would certainly think it amiss to be doing this to threads that are several weeks old.

On the other hand, if the person who is reviving an old thread is doing so by adding to it, then this may be OK. As has been mentioned by others, it is also possile to simply start a new thread with a link to the old one. My feeling is that which precedure is to be prefered is really a matter of context.

Cheers to all

John