Protocol: Starting new thread vs. posting in old thread.

[twinrider1]

Just checking to see what is preferred here.

I'll be setting up a small home network (basement + 2 stories) and have a number of questions. I've read the stickys and found some older (3+ year) threads, but wonder if they reflect current practices (best and otherwise).

Thanks.

 

[Arcanedeath]

if you have questions ask away and start a new thread, the sticky's are useful and still pretty current.

 

[Mike64]

Just checking to see what is preferred here.

Most people don't seem to give it that much thought.😉 As long as the subject line of an existing thread accurately reflects your question, I think you'll likely get a similar number of useful responses either way, since the default forum view sorts threads by last post date. Keep in mind, though, that resurrecting a truly necro thread may result in more posts about that practice than answers to your actual question.😀

If you're specifically looking for the latest word on something discussed at length in an older thread, even resurrecting a really old thread seems logical and doesn't strike me as unreasonable. It's really no different and even a bit less confusing than starting a new thread with a link to the old one for reference, after all... But if you're posting a new question about a topic even though it's been discussed at length in general, a new thread is probably the least likely to result in off-topic posts. People (myself included<sigh>) have somewhat of a tendency to pointlessly, however inadvertently, reply to old posts in old threads that start up again, not realizing just how old the earlier posts are...