• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Zombie outbreak in P&N

Status
Not open for further replies.
GodlessAstronomer

GodlessAstronomer

Lifer
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=149937
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=1065404
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=1440064
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=129830

I can see the benefit of necroing old threads in political discussions, but in this case the threads weren't dug up to make any kind of salient counter-argument (except to show Dave is a hypocrite, which won't win you any detective awards). These threads were just dug up so the necromancer could say "nya nya your side looks silly in retrospect". Why are we allowing this? It's diluting the thread pages and achieving nothing.


Thread locked due to bickering

Red Dawn
Anandtech Admin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The P&N guilty party has been advised that they have placed themselves on the radar
 
Why not allow bumping of old threads, when it's to show how wrong somebody was? Granted this is happening now "because it can" and it couldn't on the old forum, but I think when relevant topics are brought up that have a historical context, bringing up the past shouldn't be considered some kind of offense.
 
alchemize said:
Why not allow bumping of old threads, when it's to show how wrong somebody was? Granted this is happening now "because it can" and it couldn't on the old forum, but I think when relevant topics are brought up that have a historical context, bringing up the past shouldn't be considered some kind of offense.
Click to expand...

Why do you need a bump to do that? You can always just link the relevant old thread in the appropriate new thread. No need to bump with a simple "haha, you're a hypocrite" or some other worthless quip.
 
alchemize said:
Oh really? Did I say "but threads where I'm wrong shouldn't be bumped?"

You should STFU and stick to making partisan hack posts in P&N.
Click to expand...

Point being, that on a long enough timeline, everyone tends to be wrong on some point... So bumping threads based on that is pointless and just cutters the board...

/but thanks for the anger, Captain One Line...

*edit - and as for latest bump... well, you're proving my point... I'm not going to lower myself to your level..
 
Last edited:
Bumping every little thing would be silly, but the crazy (or not so crazy) predictions can prove quite entertaining and enlightening!
 
alchemize said:
Why not allow bumping of old threads, when it's to show how wrong somebody was? Granted this is happening now "because it can" and it couldn't on the old forum, but I think when relevant topics are brought up that have a historical context, bringing up the past shouldn't be considered some kind of offense.
Click to expand...
This is exactly why I brought them up. It's interesting from a historical standpoint to see what people were thinking at certain points in time and internet forums let us revisit in crystal clarity the state of mind of people at a given point without bending of statements and claiming they did or didn't say certain things. I have even bumped my own threads in the past and quoted myself with an admission of being completely wrong. That's how we can grow.

The threads I bumped I did not call out anybody on P&N. I pointed out either Bush, Blair, or Merrill. So the idea I did it to laugh at somebody here is wrong unless you think either of those are visiting P&N, and I gave props to Merrill, remember.

The point of this current thread feels an awful lot like cry-baby tattle-taling. I would like to hear from the mods on why old threads shouldn't be bumped. The reasons offered so far are invalid.

If it's really such a big deal, simply have a process on the server that locks any thread that has had no activity in a year. It would be easy and is built into the forum software. Or else it's not built in because the people who built the forum software knew it would be a useless feature.

Either way, I'm a good boy so I will stop bumping old threads. Instead I will just reference them in a new thread because, well, that's just absolutely completely different, right? Unless we're supposed to be hush-hush and never, ever mention a thread that is old. And if this thread ever becomes a year old we'll have to pretend it never happened, in which case technically we could start bumping old threads again, unless one of them was this one which would then put the guideline back in place.

Can we have some guidance? A rule as arbitrary and nonsensical as this needs some proper guidelines for us to follow. What if a thread is three years old but every 360 days somebody posts into it, is that ok? What if I start a new thread but copy bits out of an old one so that it doesn't bump the old; is there a certain percentage of that old thread I can copy into the new like a "fair use" for threads? Or is it allowed if we continue on as if the original thread was just a day or two old? Or will this be one of those "I will know it when I see it." handed down from the mods?
 
alchemize said:
Bumping every little thing would be silly, but the crazy (or not so crazy) predictions can prove quite entertaining and enlightening!
Click to expand...
They were to me. I thought of some big events in the past several years, recession and Iraq war and found a few interesting threads about them that were never "resolved" because they had had no activity in a long time and yet what we know now if it had been known then would have been so impactful on the thread, so it's like bumping it for final closure.
 
Skoorb said:
They were to me. I thought of some big events in the past several years, recession and Iraq war and found a few interesting threads about them that were never "resolved" because they had had no activity in a long time and yet what we know now if it had been known then would have been so impactful on the thread, so it's like bumping it for final closure.
Click to expand...
Skoorb said:
They were to me. I thought of some big events in the past several years, recession and Iraq war and found a few interesting threads about them that were never "resolved" because they had had no activity in a long time and yet what we know now if it had been known then would have been so impactful on the thread, so it's like bumping it for final closure.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Even UberNeuman gave me some enlightenment on that thread he pointed out during his whimpering. I never revisited that thread after that post, and where I thought I was correct on something, a year later I've found out I'm wrong.

Thanks UberNueman, taking the high road since 1999! :roll;
 
alchemize said:
Why not allow bumping of old threads, when it's to show how wrong somebody was? Granted this is happening now "because it can" and it couldn't on the old forum, but I think when relevant topics are brought up that have a historical context, bringing up the past shouldn't be considered some kind of offense.
Click to expand...

I agree it can be enlightening, but threads like that should be bumped in the proper context of a discussion. It's just annoying when people bump old threads just to say "nya nya you were wrong".
 
Skoorb said:
Skip the thread. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

Don't bump the thread and be a dick, problem solved.

You can't tell when a thread was created by just looking at the board. You have to actually enter the thread to figure that out, especially if the title is fairly ambiguous.
 
Brainonska511 said:
Don't bump the thread and be a dick, problem solved.

You can't tell when a thread was created by just looking at the board. You have to actually enter the thread to figure that out, especially if the title is fairly ambiguous.
Click to expand...
Send me a bill for the 3 seconds it takes to open that thread. Some value the old thread bumps. For the forum babies who don't just pass it over. It's a very simple concept.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top