New post on an old thread

[Jaimslaw]

Basic question that probably is applicable to several forums, but exactly why is posting / replying to a thread older than 60 days “likely to be unread / unseen”? In a car forum I belong to, it’s quite common for ppl to post/reply to threads older than 60 days, which will populate to the top of a sub-category’s as a new post (and thus get seen/read). This often introduces members to a topic and information that - albeit was raised a couple months back, ends up generating renewed interest in the topic and with that, , new posts containing useful and often updated information.

So am I correct in assuming TFP’s forum is set up in a manner that essentially makes posts / replies to older threads “unlikely to be seen or read” because it is more than 60 days old?

 

[PoolStored]

Admittedly, there is a bit of a mismatch between the 60 days prompt and explanation on the thread, and the year restriction in forum rules. @Leebo

Forum Rules - Further Reading

www.troublefreepool.com

We ask that you not answer posts that haven't had any activity in more than 60 days [thread note]/a year [Forum Rules] (unless you are updating your own topic). Usually the issue has been resolved even if that is not reflected in the thread. If you have a question for the originator of the thread send it by pm instead. Finally, with threads that are that old, many times the original posters have not been around since they posted on the thread (why the note on unlikely to be unread/unseen).

Starting a new thread allows us to provide the most recent guidance and resources.

We also get a fair amount of comments on old threads that are actually hijacking the thread with their own question on the same topic. We ask members to not hijack by attaching your question onto someone's thread. Start your own even if the topic is directly related. Then answers intended for you will not be confused with answers intended for someone else. This happens often, and our Mods have to spend time to unwind the intertwining...

We have found, having these rules, reduces the amount of administration our volunteer team needs to expend. We are a small team of unpaid volunteers.

 

[Newdude]

+1. You may have found a mostly still relevant thread, but threads from 2007 are also 'older than 60 days'. (Or anywhere in between).

And a great deal of it didn't age well. As a forum constantly shaped by member experiences, we'll even contradict ourselves. (I'm looking at YOU, Dolphin.) They were the gold standard, until they became more of a soiled brown.

There has to be a suggested cutoff and through experience, 2 months is likely into a new season of that year. Take today for example. I have a winter question, and in 2 months it's a spring question, 2 months after that it's a summer question.

 

[Jaimslaw]

I guess I don’t really understand how the explanations provided apply to a post that doesn’t really fit into the stated explanations (ie, the downside consequences), referring to a post that isn’t hijacking, is otherwise pertinent, responsive, helpful and accurate . . . but simply happens to be past the 60 day time frame. After all, each of the stated downside consequences can occur with timely posts.

I guess I could have phrased my query better: if a thread started by someone on December 2nd, with the last post to that thread made on December 10th, what is it that makes a March 1st post likely to be unread or unseen? Parenthetically, does it still get elevated as a “new post” and thus becomes as available as a recent posts and threads, correct?

The foregoing is raised with my fully understanding and appreciating the efficacy, usefulness and housecleaning objectives of the mods in providing the 60 day admonition so as to to prod the reader to pose a question as a new thread and not glob onto one that is really dated. But just seems 60 days is a pretty short fuse IMO, particularly when the post is not a question but an elucidation (e.g., updating or correcting an older thread/post).

Edit: FWIW, admittedly, curiosity is a sometimes bothersome element of my nature

 

[Newdude]

if a thread started by someone on December 2nd, with the last post to that thread made on December 10th, what is it that makes a March 1st post likely to be unread or unseen?

Nothing. It will probably be seen/read by the thread participants.

Again, we have 18 years of TFP threads and you are focusing on a tiny fraction of them. The overwhelming majority of those threads fit the description.

We read each and every post and all that is taken into consideration. Your helpful post to a relevant thread, with currently active members, will likely stay. The older the thread, the more earth shattering the new idea needs to be.

If its a 'me too' without any real help, it will me moved or deleted, no matter the age of the thread.

Nobody respected the 1 year suggestion so it became 6 months. Nobody respected that so it became 90 days. Nobody respected that, so it became 60 days. Nobody respects *that*........

In short. There was a need for the rule. As with any rule, there are exceptions. If the OP hasn't visited in 60 days, they likely won't see it. Many don't even return ever again.

 

[Jaimslaw]

Just one more question. Those searching a subject covered only in older threads often find threads with posts from a myriad of members who share their experience, expertise, admonitions, etc (and other than mods or frequent active members). Some of these posts cover matters not widely known …and sometimes known only to few individuals having a similar experience - or the know how - to provide their help. In not drafting a reply to such posts - but drafting a new post on the subject - doesn’t that keep out of the loop, individuals who would otherwise be notified and thereby inclined to further contribute their expertise? An example might be one looking into an acid injection system and finding the most recent post to be 2 years old, where in that prior period, there was a wealth of information (several threads/posts) (I was one of those contributors). If someone today were to post a how-to question in that area, I probably wouldn’t know about it..,but if I were notified of the post, I’d be all over it with whatever help I could lend or add. Many others would also be so inclined, IMO (why would that desire to help diminish over time?). Mods do a great job in reviewing new posts and rendering timely responses, and that’s to be lauded. But it’s also likely opportunities for contribution from others is reduced, or the extent of assistance diminished.

It may be that so many that failed to respect the time limitations are those who are use to interacting on other forums without time restrictions. And honestly, as don’t believe those forums suffer to any meaningful degree as a result.

Again, I have no qualms with the forum rules and look forward to spending more time here lending whatever help I can. . . limited as that may be compared to the many pros here who have forgotten more about pool stuff than I’ll ever know.

 

[Newdude]

and sometimes known only to few individuals having a similar experience -

It takes very little effort to tag/quote those few individuals in your new thread discussing your issue. Even better, link the 3(?) threads you found that were related to your problem for context, along with tagging those members.

Again, collateral damage for the good of the whole. There is/was so much hijacking and unnecessary old post reviving that the rules were put into place, and even modified along the way.

As the saying goes, for every rule, there are exceptions to the rule. You can come up with exceptions all day and you wont necessarily be wrong, but that doesn't make it better overall.