Can we PLEASE implement a rule against bumping old threads?

[Hubert]

I'd encourage all noobs to jump in and be a part of the group, and to the poster who was used as an example above:don't leave, please! Rather take all this as constructive criticism, learn from it, and join in the conversation!

Yes, please don't leave the form! We're just trying to help out everyone on the forum by pointing out a problem.

 

[Princeton]

I don't know about that. Who is really hurting? The personal threads I can completely understand, but sometimes newbies find old threads that address what people want to talk about, so why not revive them rather then start a new one?

^This, all the way. The fact that so many people are complaining about this makes me sorry to live in this world. I've been blacklisted by a company I adore and my father and I only have fifty dollars a month to live on (for the both of us!) This thread is really hurtful to people with real problems.

 

[Sgt Floyd]

Wow...I don't really know how to respond to that. I'm sorry I said anything at all what with people totally misinterpreting my intentions.

I never said bumping of threads should not be allowed period. I encourage bumping of threads. They can bring back interesting discussions that just fell to the wayside. Its the bumping of threads with one word contributing nothing that causes confusion for other members. Hubert pointed out a case in point. I don't want to ban newbies for doing this. I don't even want to see them punished. Just a simple "please be careful about bumping old posts" would suffice. But if it was made a rule, it may eliminate the urge to post one word bumping old threads. Thus, reducing the amount of confusion and clutter.

 

[frogboy4]

I know what you are saying. It's like if a new member bumped a 2002 thread about Fox developing a new Muppet Show. That's irresponsible and it would get our hopes up just to have them dashed when reading about the deal that never happened from 10 years ago. But there are also members who start threads and think that just because they're done with the conversation that it should be shut down. That's different. That I wouldn't support, but i think we're talking about the first thing.

 

[Drtooth]

I know what you are saying. It's like if a new member bumped a 2002 thread about Fox developing a new Muppet Show. That's irresponsible and it would get our hopes up just to have them dashed when reading about the deal that never happened from 10 years ago. But there are also members who start threads and think that just because they're done with the conversation that it should be shut down. That's different. That I wouldn't support, but i think we're talking about the first thing.

I've been saying that since a CERTAIN member kept bumping up EVERY thread ever written about the possibility of a Fraggle Rock movie after the fact that it was canceled... over and over, even drudging up other old threads to talk about the movie that wasn't going to happen. I asked that member politely on numerous occasions that it wasn't happening and to please stop it... he kept on doing it until I had to boldly point it out... ONLY to get chastised for being a bully! The guy was literally polluting the board with drudged up posts EXACTLY like Floyd described.

Now, I have nothing against drudging up old posts that add something to a conversation, rather than just starting multiple threads on a single topic... that gets confusing, but it hasn't stopped anyone before... even the best of us have done that. But there's NO conversation in quoting an entire thread and adding a one word head nod of an agreement.

Let's say there's a 5-10 year old thread where we talk about a long lost Muppet special. If said noob adds to the discussion (example: OH, yeah! I remember that as clear as day. But you got X wrong, and it really went like Y), there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. If they add actual video footage, all the better. But if they quote something and all they have to say is "yeah" or something, that falls into the category of drudging up "New Upcoming Muppet Show Project" that never happens.

Totally agree. It's confusing and lets our hopes up if someone replies to a certain thread with nothing. And it will confuse other new members that are capable of having a nice discussion. That's why we're here. We want to discuss something. If you type a "yeah" or an "I agree" at least give us an angle on the matter of thinking and why you agree.

 

[panmanthe2nd]

I've been saying that since a CERTAIN member kept bumping up EVERY thread ever written about the possibility of a Fraggle Rock movie after the fact that it was canceled... over and over, even drudging up other old threads to talk about the movie that wasn't going to happen. I asked that member politely on numerous occasions that it wasn't happening and to please stop it... he kept on doing it until I had to boldly point it out... ONLY to get chastised for being a bully! The guy was literally polluting the board with drudged up posts EXACTLY like Floyd described.

Now, I have nothing against drudging up old posts that add something to a conversation, rather than just starting multiple threads on a single topic... that gets confusing, but it hasn't stopped anyone before... even the best of us have done that. But there's NO conversation in quoting an entire thread and adding a one word head nod of an agreement.

Let's say there's a 5-10 year old thread where we talk about a long lost Muppet special. If said noob adds to the discussion (example: OH, yeah! I remember that as clear as day. But you got X wrong, and it really went like Y), there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. If they add actual video footage, all the better. But if they quote something and all they have to say is "yeah" or something, that falls into the category of drudging up "New Upcoming Muppet Show Project" that never happens.

Totally agree. It's confusing and lets our hopes up if someone replies to a certain thread with nothing. And it will confuse other new members that are capable of having a nice discussion. That's why we're here. We want to discuss something. If you type a "yeah" or an "I agree" at least give us an angle on the matter of thinking and why you agree.

I agree

 

[TogetherAgain]

I never said bumping of threads should not be allowed period.

I was about to say that yes, actually, you did... but upon a closer reading of your initial post, I see that I was mistaken. In fact, you said the opposite: that you don't think there should be a complete ban on bumping old threads. However, the title of this thread strongly implies that you don't want any old threads to be bumped, ever. Just thought I'd try to clear up some of that confusion. In the mean time, you've sparked a great discussion!

The problem is I'm not sure how a rule against only the meaningless bumps would be enforced. How old does a thread have to be before it's "too old" to be bumped? If someone bumps a 5-10 year old fanfic with a post that just says "Great story," is that considered pointless? I could argue either way with that one. On the one hand, it brings an old story back to the top, where people who weren't around when it was written can see it and enjoy it. On the other hand, Ed has set up a wonderful fanfic library to serve that very purpose.

Maybe that's not the best example, but my point is that the line between "good discussion" and "pointless spam" is blurrier than it may initially appear. I'm not saying the rule shouldn't exist at all; I'm just pointing out a potential problem with enforcing it. As the confusion regarding Sgt. Floyd's initial post has demonstrated, such a rule would have to be VERY carefully worded.

 

[Sgt Floyd]

Perhaps I should have used the word "about" or "on" instead of "against." Maybe people are just kinda skimming the actual post instead of reading it carefully. But I did leave it kinda open ended for discussion to get things narrowed down.

You do have a good point though. I think that threads such as games, "How are you feeling..." "what are you doing..." and other assorted general spammy threads are find to bring up. Fanfics would be fine, too. Again, there isn't a "conversation" so speak. I'm pointing to DrTooth's reply up there. I think he explained it better.

 

[LouisTheOtter]

I'm somewhat torn on this.

I agree with Sgt. Floyd (and others) that it's annoying to see somebody quote an entire comment or post insipid one-word answers just because they found a thread on something that interests them.

I can also see the trouble with a topic regarding a highly-anticipated project (Fraggle Rock movie, TMS revival on Fox or any other network) getting bumped without anything constructive to add to it. As a moderator (for eight years) of the MAD Magazine tribute site MAD Mumblings, nothing bugs me more than someone titling a thread "MAD #514" (just as an example since that's the current issue), only to learn that they started the thread NOT because they have a cover image or a table of contents or some such thing, but because they're wondering if anyone ELSE has one. Ooooh...

That being said, I can sympathize with a lot of the newbies because, well, I'm one of them. When I finally joined this group in January after being a long-time lurker, of course I wanted to comment on threads about the new movie and The Green Album that were weeks (and maybe even months) old. The thread that seems to have really stuck in some of your craws, about 1982's The Fabulous Miss Piggy Show, is one I'd like to comment on at some point. I'm not surprised in the least that some of your newest members are excited about specific topics.

If it becomes a recurring issue with specific members of the forum (and apparently it did at one point, as Dr. Tooth pointed out), I would hope that the moderators would be able to work something out. But I would hate to see an all-out ban on so-called necroposting.

(By the way, before today I had never heard the term "necroposting" - appropriate but kind of creepy...)

 

[Drtooth]

Yeah... what it comes down to is thus....

On the one hand, you don't have multiple threads on the same topic. But when someone posts something in an old thread based on a dead project, it causes confusion and misleading hopefulness about an update. Like I said, you never know who can pop in with insider information.

And really, you can't have a conversation with someone nodding their head. That's not what a conversation is. That's someone possibly listening to what one person is saying. It's nice to have a different perspective on things, otherwise, you're just stating facts and feelings to a brick wall.