Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

OK, I seem to have some very different ideas on the topic of threadromancy that the rest of the forum-posting world. I have been "busted" a few times for it, but I try to adhere to this concept of netiquette. Never mind what I THINK of it personally, but I do realize that if you want to participate in a community, you have to do so under their rules. I may have no real respect for the concept of threadromancy myself, but I value being able to participate in certain forums enough to try to avoid it to a certain extent.

My question being, how long does a thread have to sit dormant before it is considered "dead", therefore any response ot it after that point in time being considered an undesirable "resurrection"? I'd like some opinions, since I seem to be so t-mancy impaired myself. Thanks.

I'm in your camp regarding this issue. I don't ever think it's wrong to dredge up an old thread, it has never bothered me in the slightest when someone dredges up an old thread to say "Nice work" etc (well, I remember one occasion where this wasn't true - The Hoff's AdMech thread on Warseer - I was waiting to see the finished Knight, and every so often someone would revive it with "Any progress", which was always a dissappointment).

I've never understood threadomancy rage.

I think the issue is that there are quite alot of regular users who use the forums on a daily basis and when the topic runs its course and then is resurected several months later they have already read through it all.

I also think that the primary issue is that when a thread is resurrected it is invariably a useless post that has nothing to add.

I've posted on old threads if there was a new news item of note. However, it seems that even if you do that instead of some pointless reply, people will prefer flocking to a new thread even if it only has the the one-line item of info you already posted in the old thread.

stonefox wrote:I've posted on old threads if there was a new news item of note. However, it seems that even if you do that instead of some pointless reply, people will prefer flocking to a new thread even if it only has the the one-line item of info you already posted in the old thread.

Like most netiquette, it dates back to usenet. there, threads weren't always stored on servers, and so it was possible to reply to a thread that people no longer have access to, so all people see are what you quoted and your reply.

Day to day users are a little bothered by threadomancy, but the real shock is to people how post regularly but not everyday. They leave for 36 hours, and then there is a 200pts thread on "Space marine self esteem" or whatnot, and they wonder what they missed until they realize it's an ancient thread.

Clearly, threadomancy doensn't hurt anybody that badly. On the other hand, it never helps anything either. Any reply that has actual info could be a new thread, while replies that merely agree/concur/etc aren't really necessary.

There are a few other reasons:
1) it helps when looking for old threads to know when to look
2) it's possible the changed conditions have invalidiated most or all of the original thread, and so there is no value.
3) Posters who are active now, but weren't when the original thread appeared now need to read the whole thing to understand your reply.
4) many, if not most posts contain disagreements and arugements. New fights are always better then reinactments.

The cruel forces of reader demand can deal with posts that people don't find interesting. Virtually everyone woudl rather a new thread recieve three replies and then go cold then have an old thread emerge from the dead.

"Why does malfred get to bump posts?
Then Jester will get to bump posts,
and syr will get to bump posts,
it'll be anarchy!"

-Hellfury the day he was shot-

My situation makes this threadromancy rage irritating, when I get a thread shut down from a Mod b/c of it. I work offshore, and can go more than a month without web access. So I spend a lot of time reading old thereads, fishing for stuff that fits topics of interest. I'll find something that is ancient, and I cannot post a new question to it b/c some mod is going to scream "threadromancy heretic!" and shut it down. I don't like PM'ing people I don't know much, but am left with little choice. And that is a cumbersome method of asking a question regaring the thread, since they have to go review the original thread in question anyway. I tend to do just that in order to respect the netiquette of the forum, and since it makes more sense to irritate one person than all the people who seem to be "forced" to read thread in question.

Any suggestions? is there a function I am missing here?

Probably the best way would be to phrase your question as well as possible in a new thread, with a link to the old thread. Let's say there was a discussion about, say, equiptment choices for eldar exarchs, and a poster said that he really loved the chainsabres option for his scorp exarch. Nobody elaborated, and you're curious how he runs that unit.

If the thread is only a few weeks old, there's generally less animosity, but the best way if the thread is already dead would be to start a new thread. Title it "Scorpion Exarch weapons choices", and explain your question, ask for an explanation, and link back to the old thread. Anybody that wants the context, and since you linked back, you can't get hit with the "we covered this already" bit.

I'm not a mod, so I don't know what they'd rather you do, but that seems to cover all of your bases.

Polonius wrote:Probably the best way would be to phrase your question as well as possible in a new thread, with a link to the old thread. Let's say there was a discussion about, say, equiptment choices for eldar exarchs, and a poster said that he really loved the chainsabres option for his scorp exarch. Nobody elaborated, and you're curious how he runs that unit.

If the thread is only a few weeks old, there's generally less animosity, but the best way if the thread is already dead would be to start a new thread. Title it "Scorpion Exarch weapons choices", and explain your question, ask for an explanation, and link back to the old thread. Anybody that wants the context, and since you linked back, you can't get hit with the "we covered this already" bit.

I'm not a mod, so I don't know what they'd rather you do, but that seems to cover all of your bases.

I dunno. Sounds logical, but also taking etiquette too far ("Phrase question in a certain way" etc etc). Too "Victorianesque". Next thing well be eating our fish with a specific knife (taking care to place it on the left side of our plate, in between the oyster spoon and the other, smaller knife).

Having said that though, it's probably the only way to satisfy both the OP and the rest of the posters simultaneously.

Jazz is for Losers wrote:
Having said that though, it's probably the only way to satisfy both the OP and the rest of the posters simultaneously.

You're such a naughty boy.

I dunno. Sounds logical, but also taking etiquette too far ("Phrase question in a certain way" etc etc). Too "Victorianesque". Next thing well be eating our fish with a specific knife (taking care to place it on the left side of our plate, in between the oyster spoon and the other, smaller knife).

Knives go on the right.

Sheesh. Barbarian.