Thread age

[Higgs]

I want to ask all of you a question. I ask this as seriously as I can, and brace for a potential firestorm and blow back at me.

Why do people have issues with people posting to threads that are old? I myself posted to a thread that was 2 years old, but, it contained subject matter that, I was seeing just the other day. I decided, and I will stand by this decision, no matter what anyone thinks, that I was in the RIGHT to post to THAT thread, seeing, as, I was experiencing inexplicably BLURRY graphics. Let me explain. I wanted to use the STOCK 3 man command pod, and so I chose it. I took 1 look at it in the VAB and was floored that, aside from now being in .25, NOTHING had changed. Yes, my mods were and still are not updated, but, this was in a fresh game, and only 1 part out in the open. A stock 3 man pod. It was blurry as all get out. The VAB, 100% in focus. Same with all the other sundry objects, all in full focus. Not 1 setting was changed when this was experienced. I found a thread that contained a similar issue, and joined in. I knew it was 2 years old, but, why make a 2nd thread when one exists? 1 person was helpful, the rest of the posts were incredulous that I had posted in such an old thread. I caught flack from all sides for it.

I personally see no problem with doing this, and cant fathom why everyone else seems to. Please, explain why this is such a taboo thing to do.

[Felsmak]

Basically, it's just considered to be a little annoying. They take up space on the front page, where they start to compete with newer threads for the attention of the forumgoers. Remember that the front page is the place where everything happens, and most people won't look very far beyond it.

It's not that old threads aren't worth posting in. It's just that a thread that hasn't received any new responses in a long time (over three months) is considered to be dead, and it's then expected to just sink towards the bottom of the forum and rest in peace. Become part of its history, if you will. So even if there is an old thread on the topic that you want to discuss, you'd still be better off just creating a new one instead.

Then, of course, there are the people who've just learned that reviving old threads is 'not okay' and simply go along with it to come off as more experienced than the person they're criticizing. Just ignore them and wait for a moderator to decide whether it should stay open or not.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Felsmak

[Red Iron Crown]

The game has changed a lot since that thread was originally active, it is possible that advice contained therein no longer applies or is useful. Thread in question for those who haven't seen it.

If I can turn your question about a bit, what did you gain by bumping that ancient thread instead of creating a new one?

[sjwt]

there are reasons its bad, and reasons it can be good..

Basic points to consider(applies to general posting, but its easy to notice in old threads)

Is the thread still relevant(has an update changed points about it?)

Are you constructively adding to topic with something that isn't already covered in this thread or elsewhere?

does it need to be in that thread, or could a new similar thread be started?

Basically the issue comes down to the Signal to Noise ratio.. too many bumps on old threads and newer stuff falls behind.

[Higgs]

Red Iron Crown: I gained a touch of information personally. And shined a spotlight back onto something that was probably

assumed no longer able to happen at the cost of public derision which sadly makes me skittish on contributing in the future.

[Vanamonde]

at the cost of public derision which sadly makes me skittish on contributing in the future

Much of the game's code has changed since that thread started, and many players are going to be running it on newer hardware, so the thread was closed primarily to keep new and useful information separate from old and outdated information. So I believe Sal_vager's closing message was meant to be teasing rather than scolding, indicating that you hadn't done anything wrong. Closing threads like that is not a punitive matter (you were not issued an infraction over it), but rather are part of our attempt to keep the forum talking productively about current issues. Don't be afraid to post again.

[sal_vager]

Hi Higgs, I'll try to answer...

It's known as necroposting, basically it's bringing a dead thread back to life with a new post many months or even years after it last saw any activity.

It's something that many online communities don't like, I'd actually never heard of it before coming to these forums and didn't really see it as an issue as long as the post is adding something valuable, sometimes a thread can really bounce back and get a good discussion going, other times all we see is a "+1!" or similar rather pointless reply that just has no value.

Most of the time though it's better to start a new thread and then link back to the original, this helps keep things fresh and puts the new post at the forefront instead of buried 20 pages in, so it's what we recommend members do.

Necroposting upsets members so much we've had to put in a rule for it, which I'll repost here:

2.5 Necroposting

Posting in a thread that has not received a new message in a defined span of three months is known as “necroposting”. Necroposting is often frowned upon but not forbidden provided that your post does not break the other rules in this post, most notably rule 2.3a. These threads may be closed at the discretion of the staff.

Now, when a necro'd thread pops up I like to leave it and see if things pick up, but like I said they can upset people, and when that starts happening it's just better to close it and move on before it turns into pages of "dude you necro'd".

You're more than welcome to post but please be mindful of the age of a thread, sometimes it really is better to start a new one

[goldenpeach]

I know it's kinda off-subject but...

What is the biggest "necro" on this forum?

[Higgs]

.... sometimes it really is better to start a new one

Can you explain to me please, how, if say a thread for example, using the blurry textures issue I personally saw the other day, is in this case 2 years old, how is starting a new thread, that is covering this same thing a good idea? I am not trying to spark a fight or be rude, but, let me run down my reasons on why that suggestion is a bad one, and how it is better to keep an old thread alive, in this case, the blurry textures.

Lets say, we are back in version .18, and you experience the graphical issue where, your command pod is blurry as all heck, BUT, the launch platform is in perfect focus. You, do what ever it is you did to duplicate the issue, get your results, and post up a bug report. All is well right? The issue seems to go away, and you forget about it. NOW, flash forward to today. A player upgrades from .24 into .25. Changes NOTHING, does not update a single mod, just takes the program for a fast ride. Suddenly, this player incurs that glitch. Has no idea where it came from. Manages to duplicate it, but not sure how, but, he knows it did not duplicate from a restart of the full program, just the save file. He reports the incident in the thread that was started in .18.

Current logic states this is necroposting. Current ideologies state: start a new thread, avoid the derision of digging an old thread up. To me, this is just illogical and working HARDER and not SMARTER to pin down this issue. Sure, its not easily duplicated, and all the other tasty bug/glitch report req's cant be easily met. Just bad. NOW, roll with me on my logic please:

Forum Search it, or google it, or bing it, what ever tickles you. Find an old occurrence of the issue, tack into it. Now, sure, you still cant fill out the entire tick box list of whats-its and whos-its but, you HAVE provided a time line, that says: yes, this issue STILL exists, and still should be looked at.

What all this boils to is this: why make things harder on each other by making a new thread on an old horse? Just hitch that baby to the cart and make life easy.

[Vanamonde]

Higgs, that thread is so very old that it's possible that the same apparent result is arising for different reasons. To avoid confusion and the work of tracing problems down dead-end possibilities, we often decide that it's better to start fresh with a new thread. Is any of the info in that thread obsolete? I don't know, but isn't it better to just avoid the problem and start fresh threads in situations like this?

[mythbusters844]

Can you explain to me please, how, if say a thread for example, using the blurry textures issue I personally saw the other day, is in this case 2 years old, how is starting a new thread, that is covering this same thing a good idea? I am not trying to spark a fight or be rude, but, let me run down my reasons on why that suggestion is a bad one, and how it is better to keep an old thread alive, in this case, the blurry textures.

Lets say, we are back in version .18, and you experience the graphical issue where, your command pod is blurry as all heck, BUT, the launch platform is in perfect focus. You, do what ever it is you did to duplicate the issue, get your results, and post up a bug report. All is well right? The issue seems to go away, and you forget about it. NOW, flash forward to today. A player upgrades from .24 into .25. Changes NOTHING, does not update a single mod, just takes the program for a fast ride. Suddenly, this player incurs that glitch. Has no idea where it came from. Manages to duplicate it, but not sure how, but, he knows it did not duplicate from a restart of the full program, just the save file. He reports the incident in the thread that was started in .18.

Current logic states this is necroposting. Current ideologies state: start a new thread, avoid the derision of digging an old thread up. To me, this is just illogical and working HARDER and not SMARTER to pin down this issue. Sure, its not easily duplicated, and all the other tasty bug/glitch report req's cant be easily met. Just bad. NOW, roll with me on my logic please:

Forum Search it, or google it, or bing it, what ever tickles you. Find an old occurrence of the issue, tack into it. Now, sure, you still cant fill out the entire tick box list of whats-its and whos-its but, you HAVE provided a time line, that says: yes, this issue STILL exists, and still should be looked at.

What all this boils to is this: why make things harder on each other by making a new thread on an old horse? Just hitch that baby to the cart and make life easy.

I think that it would be fine to post in an old thread if it falls into the guidelines required that were listed before. In your case, it was because your post was completely irrelevant to the topic of the thread. The topic was that someone created a mod (in a very old version) but the parts created (and maybe some other parts) were blurry. Your case was that you started the game after updated and only the Mk. 1-2 cockpit (a stock part too) was blurry for one run only. As you can see, it wasn't really relevant to the topic. Hope this helps .

[sjwt]

I know it's kinda off-subject but...

What is the biggest "necro" on this forum?

We did have someone who found a few of the oldest threads and just posting the same line, it was along the lines of "wow, ksp has changed so much"