[JeremyBenson11]

Hello,

I figured I'd leave some honest feedback. I've enjoyed Dreamincode although some of the members can be a pain, lol. The site is helpful, and helps me get through my issues in code. There are some things that bother me, and things I find rude.

I just had a post closed on me, with the remark "please don't pointlessly necropost on old threads." I found this to be a rude remark from Dreamincode admin, considering I posted in the thread by following a link of a post that was in the homepage feed... If you don't want people posting in old threads unknowingly, why the heck would you put them in the homepage feed? If you're going to put old threads in the homepage feed for people to easily find and join in, why would you be rude to them?

You designed the site, not me.

http://www.dreaminco...7&#entry2147297

So my feedback is about design. If you're not going to let people post in old threads consider checking the dates of threads you're going to allow in the homepage feeds... Otherwise, you should expect full well that people are going to be posting in them, and sharing their helpful input... and when they're doing that, as per your own design, don't be rude, and tell them their pointlessly posting.. they're taking part in your forum the way YOU made it.

mod edit: updated thread title to more accurately reflect topic at hand

This post has been edited by Curtis Rutland: 27 April 2015 - 09:18 AM

[Martyr2]

Curious, but where did you see it on the homepage? I don't see anything referring to that thread (or anything from 2008 for that matter).

[macosxnerd101]

Quote

considering I posted in the thread by following a link of a post that was in the homepage feed...

The only way this would have been on the feeds on the homepage would have been if someone posted on it. As you can see, the last post prior to yours is from 2008.

Quote

If you don't want people posting in old threads unknowingly

Check the date on the last post...

Quote

If you're not going to let people post in old threads

In general, necroposting is frowned upon. I actually answered another thread inquiring about when it would be acceptable to necro a post. My response was the following:

Quote

Depends on the question. I wouldn't necro a mortgage calculator, inventory program, or how to build a linked list. If you see a really unique question that doesn't have a good answer either on DIC or a quick Google search, that's fine. I probably wouldn't go on a necro spree though.

If you use your best judgement, you should be fine. The only real rule we have about necroposting is that in regards to nonsense necroposting. If someone necro'd a ten year old Java thread to leave a meme, then that's clearly against the rules. This doesn't seem to apply to you though.

As pretty much every newbie worships TheNewBoston, it isn't exactly a novel find worth reviving a dead thread to share. Hence, why I closed.

[modi123_1]

How about just be aware, in the future, to not necropost threads. I wouldn't get overly concerned that you were brought up to speed on some of the nuanced ways of the site.

[tlhIn`toq]

Just a thought... Maybe threads can be made to close after 6 months of inactivity. Part of the nightly clean-up routine? If the thread is closed nobody is going to post to it, right?

[modi123_1]

I do not believe closed threads are spider accessible. It's a balancing act for sure.

[tlhIn`toq]

Maybe if the last activity is > 6 months a new post can only be added by someone with privileges >= mentor.
Then no nightly work is needed. When someone tries to save, the check can be done and for the people that don't know better (IE noobies) they will get they "you don't have permission" message.

[Martyr2]

You can tell that tlhIn`toq is a programmer. He just needs to solve a problem.

[jon.kiparsky]

Well, it is sort of a weird catch-22 for a new member. Here are topics, they're open, if you have something relevant to say about them, why not say it? After all, most discussion-oriented sites don't have this weird aversion to continuing a discussion. And I've said it before, but it still seems to make sense: If you don't want people to post in a thread, it really shouldn't be open for posting.

Quote

You can tell that tlhIn`toq is a programmer. He just needs to solve a problem

And what's wrong with that? This is a really bad bug in the dynamics of the site - how many newcomers fall into this trap that we've laid for them, and get yelled at for it? This is bad user experience, and it should be fixed.

In any case, what's actually wrong with the continuation of that particular thread? What harm is done if some newbie posts "gosh, I like The New Boston"? (whatever that might be)

[Martyr2]

jon.kiparsky, on 26 April 2015 - 11:47 AM, said:

Quote

You can tell that tlhIn`toq is a programmer. He just needs to solve a problem

And what's wrong with that? This is a really bad bug in the dynamics of the site - how many newcomers fall into this trap that we've laid for them, and get yelled at for it? This is bad user experience, and it should be fixed.

In any case, what's actually wrong with the continuation of that particular thread? What harm is done if some newbie posts "gosh, I like The New Boston"? (whatever that might be)

Nothing wrong with it. It is actually a compliment to him. One of those great traits all programmers tend to have.

As for it being a bug, I wouldn't say that. I have been a member on many boards for years that actually discourage necro posting. It is just not considered good board etiquette. I was on boards back in the late 90s that were even doing that.

Now is it exactly fair to leave everything open forever? Probably not. I think it is easy enough to make it so the board will close topics for editing after X number of days of non posting go by. But as for being a bug, not so much so.

I do think continuation of past threads is a bit wrong myself because people often comment on things that are not even relevant anymore. Maybe they comment on a site someone mentions and says "Oh that site doesn't work" well of course it doesn't work, it was working 5 years ago. That sort of thing. Adds no real value.

Not saying all threads are like that, but often times the older the thread, the more irrelevant the necro posting actually is.

[jon.kiparsky]

So if there's old information in a thread, and someone wants to correct it... what's wrong with that? I honestly don't see why we're so rude to people about this. If you don't care about the thing they add, it's just one of a hundred posts a day. Let it go by, there will be something you care about.

[kathy025]

tlhIn`toq, on 27 April 2015 - 02:12 AM, said:

Maybe if the last activity is > 6 months a new post can only be added by someone with privileges >= mentor.
Then no nightly work is needed. When someone tries to save, the check can be done and for the people that don't know better (IE noobies) they will get they "you don't have permission" message.

In another forum I'm a member of, this is what they do:

The thread is from Nov 2008 and it remains open but comes with a nice warning message. It doesn't discourage the user from necroing but does imply they should have a good reason why. If the reason is found insufficient, only then will a staff close it or point the user to start their own thread. The warning message compels the user to think twice and provides good experience for staff and users alike.

jon.kiparsky, on 27 April 2015 - 07:55 AM, said:

So if there's old information in a thread, and someone wants to correct it... what's wrong with that?

This is probably one of the better reasons to necro a thread. Old threads happen to turn up in Google results and have big thread views, presumably because most people land on them. Updating an old (but popular) thread with new and relevant information can't be so bad. The next time people land on them again (which is highly likely), they're bound to find needed information quickly.

Necroing is not bad in itself. As macosxnerd101 mentioned, it depends. If the information is new, relevant, and valid, I personally don't see any harm. Chances are, Googlers will find the old thread with new information and that pretty much serves the purpose of DIC.

[astonecipher]

We do actually received a good bit of traffice because of old posts. I know I have posted in a good discussion only to realize it was old, in some cases from 2007.

Those of us who have been here check dates, but a newbie will not as it looks active when there are 4+ pages.

[kathy025]

astonecipher, on 27 April 2015 - 08:52 PM, said:

We do actually received a good bit of traffic because of old posts.

StackOverflow has active old posts that helps a lot of people. I don't see why it wouldn't work in a discussion forum.

astonecipher, on 27 April 2015 - 08:52 PM, said:

Those of us who have been here check dates, but a newbie will not as it looks active when there are 4+ pages.

Yes, the dates can be really tiny too.

[TheAlmightyPug]

I'm not sure about the homepage feed, but I know this is an issue that occurs with the "Related Topics" at the bottom of the page. I can easily see a newbie clicking one of those and having no clue that the topic is old. It is much different than looking through 10+ pages of old topics and then posting something that isn't worth necroing the thread.

I don't know how feasible it is, but the related topics at the bottom should only include "Active" topics. I'm not sure how we would define it, but maybe any topic that has a post within the last 6 months. Anywhere else on the page that highlights different topics should have a similar exclusion on it if we want to limit the number of necros happening.