Making a new thread or using previous thread?

[coco]

I wonder which is better?

When we want to re-start the topic, which was at least once discussed somewhere on the forums, should we use the previous thread or making a new thread?

Which puts more burden on the server ?
Which is more informative for new members?

Any comments would be appreciated. Thank you.
---
前に少なくとも一度は話し合われた話題を繰り返したい場合、新しくスレッドをつくるのと、既にあるスレッドを使うのではどちらがよいのでしょうか。

サーバーにはどちらが負荷がかかりますか?
新しいメンバーにとってはどちらが親切でしょうか。

ご意見お聞かせください。
--
*edit*
Is limitation related with only numbers of posts? Regardless of threads' volume?
スレッドの量にかかわらず、投稿数にのみ制限が設定されているのですか?

[Infidel]

I don't think server load is really an issue. Customarily, a new topic is ok if the old one is no longer on page 1, or older than 1 week.

Something worth considering is the nature of the thread, how timeless is it? Some threads are worth reviving, others are not. It's a judgement call.

[ss]

Coco-san, I don't quite understand >> Which puts more burden on the server ? See this thread

Not sure if replies are only directed at OP or at least they are mostly for the sake of the OP. Take for example the 外人 thread, OP’s last visit was on May 15 2006. No matter how users add fun to the thread, it’s a pity that OP doesn’t know about it. (who knows ? O_o )

I would think probably just start a new thread instead. Some people might like to bring up their points of view because they are really interested in that particular topic. Maybe a quote about that topic or a link direct to that old thread, leading in to why you want to restart the topic again.

That's about my 新幣兩毛錢 S$0.20 ('',)

[Infidel]

The only real "rule" is to start a new thread for questions that haven't been asked recently. Putting a question on someone else's thread is bad form, but just as importantly, less likely to be read and answered.


If a thread drifted significantly off topic and got buried, I wouldn't revive it. But if it didn't. Like the haiku thread or the tongue twister thread, then nothing is wrong with reviving them.

General concensus for posting is something like:

1. Don't answer questions in dead threads. If the therad is old, either the person already figured it out, or went elsewhere. So answering doesn't help anyway.

2. Start new threads for new questions.


Reviwing old threads is fine if:

1. The value of the thread has more in common with buried treasure than buried bodies.

2. The OP is still around to benefit and the question obscure enough to get buried. If I saw a question Yudan asked and I suddenly knew the answer, I'd go ahead and answer it. But I wouldn't bother for someone that came on, asked the question, and never came back.

The definition of OLD varies from forum to forum, but reguardless of the forum, if the age is measured in months, it's old.

[zengargoyle]

coco wrote:
Which puts more burden on the server ?

both are mostly the same.

Which is more informative for new members?

if the old thread had a good title, and is easy to search for, then it is better.
if the old thread had information that should be read, then it is better.

if the old thread was *stupid*, then a new thread is better.

Is limitation related with only numbers of posts? Regardless of threads' volume?

yes. look at the picture threads, hundreds and hundreds of posts per thread.
we do not have to worry about number of posts for a long time. (SS-san's link) and thread number is only 10% of available. (and we can easily fix like post number problem). no worries.

I wonder which is better?

When we want to re-start the topic, which was at least once discussed somewhere on the forums, should we use the previous thread or making a new thread?

if old thread is not *stupid*, and people should read old thread for good information, then use old thread.

if you can make a better title (for searching) or old thread is *stupid* thread and not worth reading.... make a new thread (with a good title ).

if it is worth linking to old thread, it is probably worth posting to old thread.

[Harisenbon]

Something that they have on a number of forums is the automatic locking of threads after a set period of time with no activity. Like if it:s been 3 months since the last post, no more new posts could be added.

Another option could be just having a warning message popup when people try to post on old posts:
"This thread is (old / really old / really really old / older than half the posters on here). Are you sure you want to revive it?"

[coco]

Thank you for all comments.

Now I understand that we don't need to worry about capacity of the server.

Something that they have on a number of forums is the automatic locking of threads after a set period of time with no activity.

I think it is a rational way for "Answer the OP's question" type threads. At least we don't have to say " did you notice the date? " etc.

Zen-san, can OP lock his/her thread by oneself ( technically), if he/she wants?

On the other hand, I think locking threads may spoil a chance to bethink. Regarding the 外人 thread, I am interested in mule98j-san's post. He/she dug out (only) 9 months old thread.

If Mule-san had to make new thread, as his/her first post, I am wondering if I was able to read mule89j-san's contribution.

ヘタな英語ですみません。

[Infidel]

I've noticed a trend that most necroposting is done by people under 5 posts.

[zengargoyle]

coco wrote:
Zen-san, can OP lock his/her thread by oneself ( technically), if he/she wants?

no, there is no ability for OP to lock their own thread. such a feature could be added, but that is a decision for other Admins...

[coco]

ご回答、ありがとうございました。

[coco]

It seems that the same topic is discussed in this thread.

If an admin locked a thread/topic because of necropost, what is the criterial parameter　(baseline) for lock? No post for last 4months?

[Daisuke]

It seems that the same topic is discussed in this thread.

If an admin locked a thread/topic because of necropost, what is the criterial parameter　(baseline) for lock? No post for last 4months?

This was recently added to the rules...

1.5: Old threads can and should only be revived if the post benefits the community (Posts like "oh, thanks. lol. I see." etc... aren't beneficial). So unless your post is bringing up important information, or asking for better clarification, then we request you refrain from posting in old threads

With this rule I don't think there is a reason to lock threads after a certain amount of time. If a non-beneficial necropost should get posted and I haven't gotten around to it yet, I suggest that you just point out this rule for the necroposter...

[coco]

Thank you for the reply, Daisuke-san.
The rule 1.5 is quite reasonable to me.

Anyway, I found that all threads can be locked anytime if they don't have any post for last 3-4 months, regardless of how beneficial the necropost is.

[coco]

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=5771&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=60

Some of you might remember this discussion.
Even if each thread has a bellicose and unproductive necropost, it is the post that should be removed instead of locking the thread. 　
I don't think it is a very good idea to lock threads because of necropost which was decided arbitrarily.
It would kill many good threads which might have developed to more worthwhile discussions.

[ss]

I have my reason to agree there.

Someone should be responsible for his/her own action. Idiot who makes himself a fool should really be punished, not “the thread”. Locking thread unreasonably will only encourage more immature idiots to necropost.