Rule about repeat postings

Hi, okay, new member here so I don't expect my opinion to count for much but here goes.


Just posted a poll in one of the forums, and apologized in advance if it was a repeat posting.

Respondents did not add to the thread except to point me to a previous post on the same subject...but that post...was from 2002....and I found that a little silly that we can't discuss subjects here and now that may have been covered two, three years ago.


I mean, in two or three years you get lots of new members, and people change their minds as well. After a certain period of time, subjects should be allowed to come up anew so that people can discuss them with new ideas and new members adding their input too.


I think it's detrimental to the flow of ideas to force people to look back through the entire history of this forum to see if something they want to talk about has already been discussed....to me that just seems like it isn't good for making new members feel welcome or helping the forum activity to grow.

But what do I know I'm new here. I'm just going based on what I've seen at most other message boards I belong to.


In other places, similar rules exist about repeat postings, but there's limits....i.e. "Don't post double-threads on subjects that have RECENTLY been discussed."

Recently might mean within the last couple of months.

Not the last couple of years.


Another post I was directed to was one from 6 months ago that was shut down because the members pointed to the 2-year old thread.


Just seems silly to me. Can we change this to "recent" discussion, because as I said...ideas change, people change, the member list changes...it's good to "refresh" a topic after a period of time to reflect those changes, instead of dredging up ancient, long dead threads where half the respondents aren't active or registered users anymore.....

Maybe I'm wrong...I'm just used to how it works elsewhere...

If you have a question or something you want to say and a thread on the subject already exists, just post it in the old thread. If people want to respond, they will. I really don't think you're going to get any bigger response to a thread just because it's newer.

Yeah, what he said.

You make several interesting and probably valid points, Dark Blue, but here's the cheeky bit I wanted to add without rancour or to aggravate by pointing to that much older - perhaps also a couple years older - thread with a helpful link: that this topic has also been discussed elsewhere.

Instead, let all who haven't yet discussed such things respond here - or there, wherever - if they wish, and also any who may have changed there minds since.

Fulminating Floydian,
Byron

Exactly right. An ""old" thread instantly becomes "new" again because it's brought to the top of the list. An additional advantage is that there is then a continuity which is esp. helpful if someone is trying to research a specific topic.

yep stratty is right. you're not being discouraged from talking about something that has been discussed, just from making a new thread when there are already existings threads about it. You can always post on that thread however.

Sorry, I guess I should have posted here.

THBDB

What are you talking about?

There seems to be a lot of threads complaining about DDT's latley hasn't there?

Could be because they are DDT's.

XXmwahXX

I've seen that on other message boards. It means This Has Been Done Before and usually it is a link to the place where whatever "it" is has been discussed on a previous occasion. Kind of like a DDT, but more helpful. Except not in this case since it doesn't incorporate a link. So it's not all that helpful, really. Is it? Kind of like a DDT.

THBDB

That's just dandy.