Don't post in any thread that has not been active in 6 years? Should there be a limit on how far someone can go back and post in a thread? Who wants to see an active thread that was started before 2011???

I dont want to throw cold water on this, but I dont think there should be a new rule. Some of us, including myself, just joined SitcomsOnline within the last year. I think we should be able to comment on old topics considering some of us were not apart of Sitcoms Online.

I dont want to throw cold water on this, but I dont think there should be a new rule. Some of us, including myself, just joined SitcomsOnline within the last year. I think we should be able to comment on old topics considering some of us were not apart of Sitcoms Online.

First of all you should be looking at threads from now and not 6 years ago. Doesn't matter if you were not on the site at that time the thread is OUTDATED and the discussion expired. Your focus right now should be threads within the last 3 months.

Well, what if I see a thread that I want to comment on from a year or two ago? What kind of threads are outdated? I mean even if you start a new topic that sounds like one of the older threads, whats the point of doing that? Why cant you just comment on the old threads?

Well, what if I see a thread that I want to comment on from a year or two ago? What kind of threads are outdated? I mean even if you start a new topic that sounds like one of the older threads, whats the point of doing that? Why cant you just comment on the old threads?


If you want to make the discussion of an old thread active again, just start a new thread instead of bumping up the old thread. And that's because the person you are responding to may not be on the site anymore. So You would just basically create a new thread with that old discussion and see how many replies you get.

considering the fact that some of the shows we are talking about are 40 years old (or more), I don't see what the big deal is about bringing up an older topic - particularly if it isn't a very active board.

i can understand why you would get bugged when someone bumps up an extremely old thread, but I get just as bugged when someone starts a new thread about an old topic that seems to get brought up in a new thread every six months - sometimes there are a dozen or more threads about the same topic, re-asking the same questions that have been already been re-answered multiple times already over and over again...

do you really want someone creating a new thread debating whether Good Times is really a spin-off of All in the Family every 3 months from now until the end of time?

considering the fact that some of the shows we are talking about are 40 years old (or more), I don't see what the big deal is about bringing up an older topic - particularily if it isn't a very active board.

i can understand why you would get bugged when someone bumbs up an extremely old thread, but I get just as bugged when someone starts a new thread about an old topic that seems to get brought up in a new thread every six months - sometimes there are a dozen or more threads about the same topic, re-asking the same questions that have been re-answered multiple times already...

Well on boards with no activity at all I guess it's fine but i'm referring to the boards that has had activity in the past week and someone replies to a thread from 2005. Now for boards like Fish, Chico and the man, Angie, and Tony Randall it's fine.

considering the fact that some of the shows we are talking about are 40 years old (or more), I don't see what the big deal is about bringing up an older topic - particularly if it isn't a very active board.

i can understand why you would get bugged when someone bumps up an extremely old thread, but I get just as bugged when someone starts a new thread about an old topic that seems to get brought up in a new thread every six months - sometimes there are a dozen or more threads about the same topic, re-asking the same questions that have been already been re-answered multiple times already over and over again...

do you really want someone creating a new thread debating whether Good Times is really a spin-off of All in the Family every 3 months from now until the end of time?

I agree, thats what their there for. Why keep them on the board if your not allowed to post in em. That would be just plain silly.

I agree, thats what their there for. Why keep them on the board if your not allowed to post in em. That would be just plain silly.


How bout starting a NEW THREAD?? Have you tried that duckie?

Does the guy with the handle "sixfingers" know this? He used to do that all the time on the Brady Bunch section!

Does the guy with the handle "sixfingers" know this? He used to do that all the time on the Brady Bunch section!

Anyone responding to a thread from another decade needs professional help. I hope my life never becomes that boring to respond to a thread from 2005. If it does refer me to a FREE PLUS SIZE ESCORT SERVICE. Lol

Anyone responding to a thread from another decade needs professional help. I hope my life never becomes that boring to respond to a thread from 2005. If it does refer me to a FREE PLUS SIZE ESCORT SERVICE. Lol

http://preacherontheplaza.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/charlie-sigh-769156.jpg

Isn't there a way to express your opinion on this without making it seem like disagreeing with you makes one a complete and utter loser? Geez, don't ever apply for a diplomat job!

On the topic, I have no problem with posting in older threads. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE STILL THERE. Of course it's probable that the original poster is long gone, but who cares? If the topic is interesting enough, maybe newer posters who didn't have a chance to comment earlier will now. And why start a NEW thread with the same topic when there's ALREADY a perfectly usable thread available? :rolleyes:

p.s. enough with the "plus size" cracks. My guess is there aren't many chiseled, six pack abs on most of the men posting here, including myself. Let's be a little more tolerant.

http://preacherontheplaza.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/charlie-sigh-769156.jpg

Isn't there a way to express your opinion on this without making it seem like disagreeing with you makes one a complete and utter loser? Geez, don't ever apply for a diplomat job!

On the topic, I have no problem with posting in older threads. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE STILL THERE. Of course it's probable that the original poster is long gone, but who cares? If the topic is interesting enough, maybe newer posters who didn't have a chance to comment earlier will now. And why start a NEW thread with the same topic when there's ALREADY a perfectly usable thread available? :rolleyes:

p.s. enough with the "plus size" cracks. My guess is there aren't many chiseled, six pack abs on most of the men posting here, including myself. Let's be a little more tolerant.


You are starting a new thread because it makes the discussion current. And like I said I'm referring to 2005. I refuse to debate with anyone why responding to a 2005 thread is completely stupid.

I'd like to see threads older than three or four years archived. It takes little effort to make a new thread. I recently saw a thread from 2001 bumped up. I locked it. The person was replying to a post in an argument. The other members were long gone. It was ridiculous.

I'd like to see threads older than three or four years archived. It takes little effort to make a new thread. I recently saw a thread from 2001 bumped up. I locked it. The person was replying to a post in an argument. The other members were long gone. It was ridiculous.


Not 2001 Janice, Please don't tell me that LOL

It makes more sense to me to revive an old thread than to start a new thread on the same topic. Ever heard of redundancy?

Why have 10 threads on the same topic just because some people feel that reviving old threads is such a heinous and unforgivable thing...?

If someone doesn't want to read or respond to old threads, then don't.

It's that simple.

anyone responding to a thread that was started when I had a full head of hair and good knees should be BANNED instantly for stupidity

lol

anyone responding to a thread that was started when I had a full head of hair and good knees should be BANNED instantly for stupidity

lol

Your continued berating and harrassment of anyone who dares venture a contrary opinion has gotten tiresome.

I suggest you deal with your inferiority complex issues someplace else.

People come here to have fun, not to be betlittled and dismissed by a self-appointed hallway monitor who feels that his opinion and point of view is more important than anyone else's.

Why you are still a member here is beyond me.

I await your mature and well-thought out response.

It makes more sense to me to revive an old thread than to start a new thread on the same topic. Ever heard of redundancy?

Why have 10 threads on the same topic just because some people feel that reviving old threads is such a heinous and unforgivable thing...?

If someone doesn't want to read or respond to old threads, then don't.

It's that simple.

I agree completely. I also don't see a problem in responding to an old thread, it is not always an attempt to get replies from the previous posters who may or may not still be members of the forum. Rather, it's simply an attempt to revive a stalled thread with current forum members who then may also choose to join in and continue the discussion. Why start a new thread on a topic when a previous one already exists? The boards are cluttered with threads as it is, why add to the clutter and start another thread when it sometimes isn't necessary?

Your continued berating and harrassment of anyone who dares venture a contrary opinion has gotten tiresome.

I suggest you deal with your inferiority complex issues someplace else.

People come here to have fun, not to be betlittled and dismissed by a self-appointed hallway monitor who feels that his opinion and point of view is more important than anyone else's.

Why you are still a member here is beyond me.

I await your mature and well-thought out response.


The problem isn't so much that the person is replying to an old thread, it's when they do respond to an old thread they will say something like

"I agree"


So this person responded to an old thread to say NOTHING? I don't think I would mind if they added some discussion to the topic rather than I agree. Well if you agree tell me why you agree?

The problem isn't so much that the person is replying to an old thread, it's when they do respond to an old thread they will say something like

"I agree"


So this person responded to an old thread to say NOTHING? I don't think I would mind if they added some discussion to the topic rather than I agree. Well if you agree tell me why you agree?

Okay, I see your point.

But I still contend that reviving an old thread -- even if it's to say little or nothing -- is better than cluttering up these forums with redundant topics. I don't know how much space the owners here pay for, but I'm sure it's not an infinite amount.

I'd like to see threads older than three or four years archived. It takes little effort to make a new thread. I recently saw a thread from 2001 bumped up. I locked it. The person was replying to a post in an argument. The other members were long gone. It was ridiculous.

I agree with you on archiving such threads, but I don't think they
should be completely removed. People should still be able to view
them.

Anyone responding to a thread from another decade needs professional help. I hope my life never becomes that boring to respond to a thread from 2005. If it does refer me to a FREE PLUS SIZE ESCORT SERVICE. Lol

You have SEVENTY THOUSAND posts. Your life isn't "that boring"? Get a clue.

You have SEVENTY THOUSAND posts. Your life isn't "that boring"? Get a clue.

If you had something in your head besides OATMEAL you would realize I been on the site for 10 years. You have to be one of stupidest posters on this site I ever seen.

If you were as observant as you believe yourself to be, you'd have noticed that I registered exactly one day before you. I've watched you belittle people on here for literally a decade. It's no wonder your whole world seems to revolve around picking apart the banalities of television. Get a life.

If you were as observant as you believe yourself to be, you'd have noticed that I registered exactly one day before you. I've watched you belittle people on here for literally a decade. It's no wonder your whole world seems to revolve around picking apart the banalities of television. Get a life.


You have OATMEAL in your head and i have no interest in discussing anything with you from this point on.

seek help

can we please at least try to keep it civil?

just because we disagree about something doesn't mean we have to be jerks about it.

Stop it. Solomon cracked a joke aimed at nobody here, and the PC Police are hitting him below the belt and getting personal. That's against the rules.

I don't think there's a problem adding to old threads. There are plenty of topics that could have new life with a couple of new comments. There are also unanswered questions that are just waiting for the right person to visit. The only threads that really shouldn't be bumped up are time sensitive topics, such as marathons or schedules from years ago. People should just use common sense when replying to old threads.

We archive old posts on Chit Chat, but it wouldn't be very practical or easy to do it on the individual show boards.

Fight threads should stay dead too. Resurrecting old wounds serves no purpose. I usually lock them on Chit Chat.

I like how Something Awful and NeoGAF moderate, it's a pretty good example. Certain topics go on upwards of 50-500 pages to keep the boards clean unless there's a lot of derailing.

Fight threads should stay dead too. Resurrecting old wounds serves no purpose. I usually lock them on Chit Chat.

I agree with you, Janice, and I should not talk that way about Solomon

I agree with you, Janice, and I should not talk that way about Solomon


Just make sure you remember it-lol

I don't think there's a problem adding to old threads. There are plenty of topics that could have new life with a couple of new comments. There are also unanswered questions that are just waiting for the right person to visit. The only threads that really shouldn't be bumped up are time sensitive topics, such as marathons or schedules from years ago. People should just use common sense when replying to old threads.

We archive old posts on Chit Chat, but it wouldn't be very practical or easy to do it on the individual show boards.

THANK YOU, TODD! I see nothing wrong with it. It throws me off sometimes but it is not life and death. Geez! I hate it when people start messing with others because they are bumping up an old topic. You are right. People just need to use common sense when selecting to reply to old threads.

BTW, its good to see you out of hiding. I happy anniversay (belated) from yesterday. Miss talking to you. I still have my "Joanie love Chachi" tapes from our trade back from the summer of 2000. LOL. Be good, man. :)

Just make sure you remember it-lol

Whatever, Solomon! LOL. :lol:

Here is my take on the situation:

I can see why one would not want the boards clogged up with people bumping up old threads; however, in some of the forums, for example the soap opera forums, new threads are rare and bumping up an old thread can be appropriate when the discussion is relevant to something current. That board is not particulary active.

Obviously, I'm going to respect the rules of the forum, but I can't honestly see the harm in responding to an older thread.

In my humble opinion, if we aren't allowed to respond to or bump up an old thread maybe they should be archived or deleted? Personally, part of the fun of this site is being able to see my older threads and either laugh at what I once thought or just remember what it was. Sometimes It's easier to bump an old thread than create a new thread simply to continue an old discussion.

I also think it might prove to be very difficult to enforce this rule. It's possible a new poster may not know about this rule and will innocently respond to an old thread not knowing it's against the rules.

Basically, my fear is that people will get in trouble for something they had no idea was against the rules. Also, I just feel like perhaps it's counter productive to tell people not to respond to threads on the boards, simply because they are too old. Sometimes, a thread may have been posted awhile ago; but may still be releveant. Perhaps somebody posted a question, but it took somebody years to find an answer. Example: in the spin-off's and one-year wonders forum, it's not uncommon for somebody to post a thread asking if anybody remembers a show and then have to wait years to get a response.

That's just my two cents. I hope I was helpful.


I am confused now, is this actually a rule now, or was it just somebody suggesting a rule? I'm just curious. I don't want to do something that is against the rules.

Here is my take on the situation:

I can see why one would not want the boards clogged up with people bumping up old threads; however, in some of the forums, for example the soap opera forums, new threads are rare and bumping up an old thread can be appropriate when the discussion is relevant to something current. That board is not particulary active.

Obviously, I'm going to respect the rules of the forum, but I can't honestly see the harm in responding to an older thread.

In my humble opinion, if we aren't allowed to respond to or bump up an old thread maybe they should be archived or deleted? Personally, part of the fun of this site is being able to see my older threads and either laugh at what I once thought or just remember what it was. Sometimes It's easier to bump an old thread than create a new thread simply to continue an old discussion.

I also think it might prove to be very difficult to enforce this rule. It's possible a new poster may not know about this rule and will innocently respond to an old thread not knowing it's against the rules.

Basically, my fear is that people will get in trouble for something they had no idea was against the rules. Also, I just feel like perhaps it's counter productive to tell people not to respond to threads on the boards, simply because they are too old. Sometimes, a thread may have been posted awhile ago; but may still be releveant. Perhaps somebody posted a question, but it took somebody years to find an answer. Example: in the spin-off's and one-year wonders forum, it's not uncommon for somebody to post a thread asking if anybody remembers a show and then have to wait years to get a response.

That's just my two cents. I hope I was helpful.


I am confused now, is this actually a rule now, or was it just somebody suggesting a rule? I'm just curious. I don't want to do something that is against the rules.


My issue wasn't that someone was replying to an old thread, it was that when they replied they didn't add anything to the discussion. They would just say.."I agree"

And I'm like.."your life is that dull that you would reply to a 2008 thread to say I AGREE? So that's the issue I had

My issue wasn't that someone was replying to an old thread, it was that when they replied they didn't add anything to the discussion. They would just say.."I agree"

And I'm like.."your life is that dull that you would reply to a 2008 thread to say I AGREE? So that's the issue I had


Okay, I'm sorry. I misunderstood.

I think sometimes people will write "I agree" with the intention of joining into the converstation but they just aren't sure what to say. Also, in a lot of the threads, it's not that hard to end up replying to an old thread. I was just in the classic drama's forum and on "The Division" page, most of the threads are from pre-2010, so If I wanted to talk about that show I have no choice but to reply to an old thread.

so, I just want to clarify, is there now an official rule that says we aren't allowed to reply to certain threads?

Okay, I'm sorry. I misunderstood.

I think sometimes people will write "I agree" with the intention of joining into the converstation but they just aren't sure what to say. Also, in a lot of the threads, it's not that hard to end up replying to an old thread. I was just in the classic drama's forum and on "The Division" page, most of the threads are from pre-2010, so If I wanted to talk about that show I have no choice but to reply to an old thread.

so, I just want to clarify, is there now an official rule that says we aren't allowed to reply to certain threads?


No I was recommending it be a new rule but doesn't look like it will happen

But to reply to a 2005 thread is just WACKY IMO. I mean that's 7 years ago LOL

How this has been argued over three pages just blows my mind. If you want to reply, why can't you? Who cares if it was seven years ago. If it bugs you, just DON'T read it, it's as simple as that!

How this has been argued over three pages just blows my mind. If you want to reply, why can't you? Who cares if it was seven years ago. If it bugs you, just DON'T read it, it's as simple as that!

Some threads I'm still subscribed to and will get the email notification. I just become stunned when it's a 2005 thread

My issue wasn't that someone was replying to an old thread, it was that when they replied they didn't add anything to the discussion. They would just say.."I agree"

What's the difference in that and someone bumping a thread just to drive it to the top of the totem pole? I've seen this happen many times and usually it's done by the thread starter after their post goes several days without a reply. This is done primarily to draw attention to their thread and very rarely is anything ever added to it except "Bump."

I see both sides in this. To me it basically comes down to "a half dozen of this" or "six of the other".

I almost never post on a very old thread but sometimes unususal situations present themselves.

I'll give an example. Leave It To Beaver starting coming on my area (via Antenna TV) and I saw an ep that was particularly moving to me that I wanted to comment on. When I searched the LITB Forum I found a thread on the ep already started. The last post was several years old. Since I wasn't sure of the etiquette, I just went ahead and posted, but did preface my post with a note for the Mods/Administrators, that I wasn't sure what was better; start a new thread or post on an old one. I chose to post on the old one. Apparrently, other posters saw this ep and posted on the thread too after I "bumped" it.

I'm personally fine with either approach: either bump the old thread up with a relevant post, or start a "new" thread

AS an FYI, the thread I'm referring to in the LITB Forum is "Eddie Spends The Night"

I see nothing wrong with posting to older threads as long as the post is relevant not a post like I agree 100% and yep your right and so on.

I don't know if this forum had a setting that will force posters to post a reply no less than let's say 25 characters, this way there will be no short replies or bumps for no reason.

There might already be one but I don't really know as of right now but it is just an idea.

I also believe that relying to old threads might spark new interests in those threads.

I see nothing wrong with posting to older threads as long as the post is relevant not a post like I agree 100% and yep your right and so on.

I don't know if this forum had a setting that will force posters to post a reply no less than let's say 25 characters, this way there will be no short replies or bumps for no reason.

There might already be one but I don't really know as of right now but it is just an idea.

I also believe that relying to old threads might spark new interests in those threads.

It will only spark new interest if the person replying says more than..."I AGREE"

It will only spark new interest if the person replying says more than..."I AGREE"

Probably...but "bumps" often spark others to comment in more detail.

It would be funny if five or six years from now, someone posted on this thread, "I agree."

;)

I agree.

Really, I do. I get your point. I am a member on another forum (have been for over 10 years) and one of the rules there is your post must contribute to the conversation. There are no one word posts allowed such as:

LOL
ITA (I too agree)
Really?
Why?
WTH?
No
Yes

nor can you just post, "I agree". There has to be something on topic that pertains to the subject matter. It cuts down on unnecessary posting that adds nothing to the conversation so there is a smooth flow for reading. Anyone who does that, has their posts immediately deleted.

JMO on this matter.

I agree.

Really, I do. I get your point. I am a member on another forum (have been for over 10 years) and one of the rules there is your post must contribute to the conversation. There are no one word posts allowed such as:

LOL
ITA (I too agree)
Really?
Why?
WTH?
No
Yes

nor can you just post, "I agree". There has to be something on topic that pertains to the subject matter. It cuts down on unnecessary posting that adds nothing to the conversation so there is a smooth flow for reading. Anyone who does that, has their posts immediately deleted.

JMO on this matter.


Sounds like a great site, what's the name of it

At one forum, I was harassed for making new threads about a topic, when there already was a thread about it, even if no one had posted there for ages. And at another forum, I was harassed for the opposite, that I bumped old threads. Both these forums had some really rude members though, and I still feel bad when thinking of them. But I don't see how either making a new thread or bumping an old thread can be so terrible.

At one forum, I was harassed for making new threads about a topic, when there already was a thread about it, even if no one had posted there for ages. And at another forum, I was harassed for the opposite, that I bumped old threads. Both these forums had some really rude members though, and I still feel bad when thinking of them. But I don't see how either making a new thread or bumping an old thread can be so terrible.


My only issue with bumping a old thread is it maybe from 2005 and most of the members are no longer on the site. If someone bumps a thread from May of 2012 then it's a good chance those members who participated in those discussions are likely still around

My only issue with bumping a old thread is it maybe from 2005 and most of the members are no longer on the site. If someone bumps a thread from May of 2012 then it's a good chance those members who participated in those discussions are likely still around

I totally see your point for sure. I think sometimes however it's okay to bump an old thread if it is still relevant or there is something new to add to the conversation. And Frankly, sometimes it's just fun to see what we used to think....

I guess it's a matter of different strokes for different folks?

I guess you can bump an old thread. For ex., I have been on this board since Mar. 2011. If I see a thread from 2008 that I want to respond to, would it be ok to respond? I wasnt on the board in 2008 but I cant respond to an old thread, can you just make a new thread??

I guess you can bump an old thread. For ex., I have been on this board since Mar. 2011. If I see a thread from 2008 that I want to respond to, would it be ok to respond? I wasnt on the board in 2008 but I cant respond to an old thread, can you just make a new thread??

Respond to any thread you want, thats what there for. Sure you can make a new one, the most logical thing to do would just respond to the old thread. It keeps the boards from having to many duplicates.

I guess you can bump an old thread. For ex., I have been on this board since Mar. 2011. If I see a thread from 2008 that I want to respond to, would it be ok to respond? I wasnt on the board in 2008 but I cant respond to an old thread, can you just make a new thread??
I think as long as you don't just bump up a thread to say "I agree" it would be okay. 2008 isn't that long ago. Sometimes I forgot about the thread and I enjoy reading them again. Maybe if the thread is from 2000-2004 or something like that, it would be better to start a new one though. I actually remember about 5 years ago, I would get bored and just go to the old sitcom boards and post on old threads. lol

I think as long as you don't just bump up a thread to say "I agree" it would be okay. 2008 isn't that long ago. Sometimes I forgot about the thread and I enjoy reading them again. Maybe if the thread is from 2000-2004 or something like that, it would be better to start a new one though. I actually remember about 5 years ago, I would get bored and just go to the old sitcom boards and post on old threads. lol


Thank you, that's the whole point of the entire thread. :lol: Someone responding to a thread created in 2008 to say "I agree" is just beyond weird. Makes it look like a person is bored out of their mind or just flat out wacky:crazy:

Thank you, that's the whole point of the entire thread. :lol: Someone responding to a thread created in 2008 to say "I agree" is just beyond weird. Makes it look like a person is bored out of their mind or just flat out wacky:crazy:


You're right, I was going to respond to a Corner Gas thread, but then thought, what's the point, eh? :lol:

If the powers that be don't want old threads being bumped, then they shouldn't be archived. I have never been on a message board where people got taken to task over responding to an old thread.

Kind of silly, if you ask me.

If the powers that be don't want old threads being bumped, then they shouldn't be archived. I have never been on a message board where people got taken to task over responding to an old thread.

Kind of silly, if you ask me.


Nothing wrong with replying to a old thread as long as it's not...."I agree"


Why respond to a old thread to say nothing?

Nothing wrong with replying to a old thread as long as it's not...."I agree"


Why respond to a old thread to say nothing?

Good point. I agree.

Whoops!

;)

Good point. I agree.

Whoops!

;)


That I agree is acceptable because it's 2012:lol:

That I agree is acceptable because it's 2012:lol:

I concur.

I concur.
So do I. lol

This (http://sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?p=4737651) is a great example of what's wrong with bumping ancient threads. Please note that up until a few days ago, the thread was on the "general sitcoms" board.

One person resurrects a dozen-year-old thread because they're "bored," and the next person who posts has no idea they're responding to something posted during the Clinton Administration by someone who hasn't posted since a month before 9/11.

In other words, the thread was created when I was a teenager. I'm 32 now.

This (http://sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?p=4737651) is a great example of what's wrong with bumping ancient threads. Please note that up until a few days ago, the thread was on the "general sitcoms" board.

One person resurrects a dozen-year-old thread because they're "bored," and the next person who posts has no idea they're responding to something posted during the Clinton Administration by someone who hasn't posted since a month before 9/11.

In other words, the thread was created when I was a teenager. I'm 32 now.


Exactly Brad LOL


Let me ask you this, the person who responded to the old thread did they have a lot to say?

Exactly Brad LOL


Let me ask you this, the person who responded to the old thread did they have a lot to say?
Absolutely not. They even admitted that they only bumped the thread out of boredom.

Absolutely not. They even admitted that they only bumped the thread out of boredom.


well that person should have been suspended because that means they are contributing nothing to this site.

So would it be better that if I saw a post that want to respond from 2000, to just start a new thread or post? I will happily do it. Whatever, you guys feel is right. Maybe we should have a certain cut-off date so everybody on the board knows. Ex. You can respond(and not 1 word responses) from June 2008 to the present. Im not saying that should be it, I'm just stating an example.

So would it be better that if I saw a post that want to respond from 2000, to just start a new thread or post? I will happily do it. Whatever, you guys feel is right. Maybe we should have a certain cut-off date so everybody on the board knows. Ex. You can respond(and not 1 word responses) from June 2008 to the present. Im not saying that should be it, I'm just stating an example.


It would be better to just start a new thread because if the thread is from 2000, that discussion has already ended so whatever you are contributing won't really matter. The people who participated in that thread may not even be on the board anymore so it;s best just to start a new thread topic.

Here is an excellent example about replying to an old thread.


http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=15033

Note that the OP was made in 2001!

It would be better to just start a new thread because if the thread is from 2000, that discussion has already ended so whatever you are contributing won't really matter. The people who participated in that thread may not even be on the board anymore so it;s best just to start a new thread topic.
But then again, does it really matter? I mean, if someone wants to reply to a twelve-year-old thread, does it really bother you that much?

Like I said earlier, it depends on the circumstance. But, as Sol stated, to post to an old/ancient thread "I agree", isn't likely to add anything substantive.

Maybe not, but someone else might see the thread and say something more interesting.

I have to agree though, that Treky almost seems to be a troll.

Here is an excellent example about replying to an old thread.


http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=15033

Note that the OP was made in 2001!


I'm little surprised by that since it was from a person who been on this board for years

But then again, does it really matter? I mean, if someone wants to reply to a twelve-year-old thread, does it really bother you that much?


Yes it matters because I;'m still subscribed to those old threads and when I get a email showing that the person who replied responded to say NOTHING it's annoying.

Like I said earlier, it depends on the circumstance. But, as Sol stated, to post to an old/ancient thread "I agree", isn't likely to add anything substantive.


I;m going to take it a step further, to reply with a "I agree" to a 2012 thread is also annoying:lol:

Maybe not, but someone else might see the thread and say something more interesting.

I have to agree though, that Treky almost seems to be a troll.


I don't think so because treky has been on the general discussion board discussing tv shows so that's why I was so shocked you responded to sucj a old thread

I don't think so because treky has been on the general discussion board discussing tv shows so that's why I was so shocked you responded to sucj a old thread
Did you take a look at the thread I linked? He's the one who bumped that one, as well. He's doing it on purpose because in his words, he's "bored" and he's "being funny." I wouldn't go as far as saying he should be suspended, but someone should tell him to stop.

Did you take a look at the thread I linked? He's the one who bumped that one, as well. He's doing it on purpose because in his words, he's "bored" and he's "being funny." I wouldn't go as far as saying he should be suspended, but someone should tell him to stop.


what about a warning to be suspended because if he does it to a thread I started or subscribed to I will be reporting him for excessive trolling to TJ

I still don't see the big deal. One persons actions (trekky??) shouldn't ruin it for all. If someone wants to post something new under that very old, they should be allowed, especially if it contributes to the subject. Maybe someone has the same question and will find it instead of starting a new topic.

I still don't see the big deal. One persons actions (trekky??) shouldn't ruin it for all. If someone wants to post something new under that very old, they should be allowed, especially if it contributes to the subject. Maybe someone has the same question and will find it instead of starting a new topic.


It has already been stated that if someone replies to a old thread and has a lot to contribute that's fine.

The issue is responding to a old thread and saying..."I agree" without explaining why which is a waste of time.

Here's another good reason to close threads once they reach a certain age: thanks to a particular thread being resurrected from the dead twice, poor Amy Davidson, 33, has turned 30 three times in the past three years (http://sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?p=4743072#post4743072).

Yeah, I've never been a fan of seeing old threads bumped up.

I can understand when it happens if there are any significant updates regarding a thread, but I can't stand it if it's just "I agree" or some random photo.

To me an "old thread" is at least 3 years old or more.

Here's another good reason to close threads once they reach a certain age: thanks to a particular thread being resurrected from the dead twice, poor Amy Davidson, 33, has turned 30 three times in the past three years (http://sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?p=4743072#post4743072).


I was criticized on a Cowboys board for bumping up a thread from last week:lol:


So you know it's no such thing as bumping up a thread from 2007

Did you take a look at the thread I linked? He's the one who bumped that one, as well. He's doing it on purpose because in his words, he's "bored" and he's "being funny." I wouldn't go as far as saying he should be suspended, but someone should tell him to stop.

I personally think he should be suspended cause that's basically a form of trolling

I personally think he should be suspended cause that's basically a form of trolling

I believe members are given a warning before a suspension but that's not our department.

Here's another good reason to close threads once they reach a certain age: thanks to a particular thread being resurrected from the dead twice, poor Amy Davidson, 33, has turned 30 three times in the past three years (http://sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?p=4743072#post4743072).
i get Robyn a birthday cake every year that says "Happy 29th Birthday Robyn"

i'm pretty sure Amy Davidson would be OK with people still thinking she's just turning 30 every year.

...please resume your discussin

LOL robyrob.

There is a way to fix this issue everyone. If it's your thread, just copy and paste in a new thread and you can jump start it again. If it's not your thread, just start a similar one and go from there. After all, many of us post threads not just to give our opinions, but get others opinions as well. I myself happen to like some of these older threads. I posted a thread 3 years ago about VCRs and someone PMd me and asked me to reboot it because they thought it was very informed. I didn't though because I feel that VCRs are irrelevant anymore.

On some boards you can't even reply to a thread that was posted in January.

But as long as someone is contributing to a 2009 thread then it's no issue

What's the point of bumping up a thread that old, it confuses people. I know when this person did this on another board people were confused cause they didn't realize it was an OLD thread when they saw it

bumping old threads cause one is bored shouldn't be permitted IMO

What's the point of bumping up a thread that old, it confuses people. I know when this person did this on another board people were confused cause they didn't realize it was an OLD thread when they saw it

bumping old threads cause one is bored shouldn't be permitted IMO


Yeah they can just post a new thread and start the topic over again rather than responding to a old thread

Unless someone complains about that, since "there's already a thread about that subject". :rolleyes:

Bottom Line: You can't please everybody. There will always be somebody that isn't happy with the policy. I think as long as the person is contributing something of value to the discussion it shouldn't matter how old the thread is.

Unless someone complains about that, since "there's already a thread about that subject". :rolleyes:

;)

Is there a way to tweak the forum software so that it won't accept replies no shorter than let's say 15 words or whatever number the Admins and Mods come up with ???

Is there a way to tweak the forum software so that it won't accept replies no shorter than let's say 15 words or whatever number the Admins and Mods come up with ???


It should be, time for TJ to make some upgrades

I don't want to be forced to write a certain amount of words. Sometimes a smiley says it all.

I don't want to be forced to write a certain amount of words. Sometimes a smiley says it all.


No response should be less than a sentence. That's what keeps a discussion interesting and ongoing

on alot of boards it's a no no to just use smiley's as a reply, they consider it a waste of bandwidth. They also feel it doesn't contribute to the discussion

on alot of boards it's a no no to just use smiley's as a reply, they consider it a waste of bandwidth. They also feel it doesn't contribute to the discussion


This is the only board where you are able to post one word responses

on alot of boards it's a no no to just use smiley's as a reply, they consider it a waste of bandwidth. They also feel it doesn't contribute to the discussion

If that's the case then a hell-of-alot of bandwith has been wasted here. :lol:

If responding to threads of a certain age is frowned upon, then threads should be deleted once they've reached x number of years old or...they should be archived with no option to reply to them.

I don't see the problem with replying to and reviving an old thread if someone has something to say and wants to see if anyone else does either.

Even if just writing a smilie is too short, fifteen words is rather a lot too. The limit should be much lower than that.

IMO there should be no limit. One size does not fit all. There are (rare) occasions when a two or three word response is apropos.

The thing with limits; if you make your statement in three or four words, then you have someone doing this:

"I believe you're correct! blah blah blah ... blah blah blah."

What else could you add if that is all you wanted? In my opinion, limits make the forum look less professional.

How about, instead of starting a topic in a new thread, a user in the forum can just use the search engine for existing threads focusing on the said topic and posting his comment about the said topic in that existing thread?

But that's the problem: People started complaining about others bumping old threads. While you can also be reprimanded for doing the opposite (making a new thread about a topic, which already has a thread).

If responding to threads of a certain age is frowned upon, then threads should be deleted once they've reached x number of years old or...they should be archived with no option to reply to them.

I don't see the problem with replying to and reviving an old thread if someone has something to say and wants to see if anyone else does either.
I am an old thread,I should be deleted.

I don't see the problem with replying to and reviving an old thread if someone has something to say and wants to see if anyone else does either.

I agree.
Besides, sometimes it is nice to see those old threads... Reminisce about the old times. ;)

I agree.
Besides, sometimes it is nice to see those old threads... Reminisce about the old times. ;)

;)

I agree.

Really, I do. I get your point. I am a member on another forum (have been for over 10 years) and one of the rules there is your post must contribute to the conversation. There are no one word posts allowed such as:

LOL
ITA (I too agree)
Really?
Why?
WTH?
No
Yes

nor can you just post, "I agree". There has to be something on topic that pertains to the subject matter. It cuts down on unnecessary posting that adds nothing to the conversation so there is a smooth flow for reading. Anyone who does that, has their posts immediately deleted.

JMO on this matter.


I know this is over a year old, but I was just reading here, this is my first time on this particualr forum. But I agree with this,, I HATE one-word replies.

I hate posting a topic and someone just replies with, "no" or "ok"


I think a 5 word min. would be good, I just sooo hate one or two word responses/

I know this is over a year old, but I was just reading here, this is my first time on this particualr forum. But I agree with this,, I HATE one-word replies.

I hate posting a topic and someone just replies with, "no" or "ok"


I think a 5 word min. would be good, I just sooo hate one or two word responses/


Sometimes people lose site that it's a discussion form and not a TEXT RESPONSE:lol:

Sometimes people lose site that it's a discussion form and not a TEXT RESPONSE:lol:


I even hate that stuff in texting.

It's so annoying to write someone a whole paragraph, pour out a whole situation to them and they just reply with, "ok", or "lol" or "OIC" gggrrr lol

I think at Youtube there is like a 3 word min. which is good.

Well, I'm okay with the occasional short reply. If the whole thread consists of those, then we might have problem, but not otherwise.

And about the OT about reviving old, ancient threads, I guess I can see both sides. I know sometimes when I come onto a forum for the first time... like on this particualr on for e.g. ... Sometimes I like to just scroll way back and read ancient threads and see what ppl were discussing years and years ago, and sometimes I will see an old topic that will peek my interest so I might give my 2 cents on it.... sometimes forgetting that what I'm replying to might be from a year like 2002 or 2003 lol

I am a member of a site now that doesn't allow you to type one word replies and can't respond to old threads:wave:

I am a member of a site now that doesn't allow you to type one word replies and can't respond to old threads:wave:

That would prolly be the best thing. I mean if the mods and admins don't want you to reply to older threads then they should maybe make the read-only archieved like where you can read them but not be able to respond to them.

But it IS a fine line. I know some forums I have been on don't want you to make a duplicate thread or a thread that's similar to one that already exists, yet they also dont like to to bring older threads back to life, so what do you do? :confused: lol

My thinking on that has always been, if I don't find a thread similar to one I'm wanting to post on the 1st 2 pages, I make a new one, I don't like having to dig back through TONS and TONS and years worth of posts trying to find one that's similar to what I'm wanting to discuss, which is at one forum what they expected us to do.

I love reviving old threads to be honest and my thought is that any thread that the moderators don't want people replying to should just be closed. That's the easiest way to solve this.

Just curious what are some of the older threads that have been revived most reccently? Any from the 90s? lol