I've been considering trying a TAS for a few months, and I just recently got started on it. Once I decided on a game to try, I searched the site for existing runs (none) and the forum for works in progress. I did find one partial attempt that got about halfway through the game but was apparently abandoned about five years ago. If I decide to post my work in progress, should I reply to that forum thread, or should I start my own?
I'm disappointed that this isn't a bump to a years-old thread :( Someone go bump it in 2018.
And yes, if you have something new to say and there's an appropriate thread to say it in, the age of the thread doesn't matter. Multiple threads on the same topic just makes it harder to find information.
Thanks for the swift responses. That's basically the answer I expected, but on the internet, it's easier to get permission than forgiveness, so I wanted to make sure.
ais523 wrote:
I'm disappointed that this isn't a bump to a years-old thread :(
Unfortunately, if I had found someone else asking the same question, I wouldn't have needed to raise the thread...
Policies about necroposting in other forums make absolutely no sense. Why should it matter how old the thread is? Whether your response is relevant to the thread or not is completely independent of the fact of how old the last post is. It's not like the age of the oldest post somehow determines how relevant your response is.
It just feels like someone came up with this random idea, and for some psychological reason it spread like wildfire. The worst thing is that some forums took it so to heart that they enacted outright draconian and completely nonsensical rules about necroposting, as if necroposting were one of the worst crimes in existence.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Policies about necroposting in other forums make absolutely no sense. Why should it matter how old the thread is? Whether your response is relevant to the thread or not is completely independent of the fact of how old the last post is. It's not like the age of the oldest post somehow determines how relevant your response is.
Indeed, you're right.
However what I have seen elsewhere are help threads which someone created to solve some immediate problem, and 5 years later someone posts a solution where the original user is long gone. In this case, the original user no longer cares, so it's a waste to reply, and just annoys everyone else around. Over here, replying is only helpful if someone else runs into the same problem, for example this thread appears on Google results for the issue in question.
Worse than the above case where someone replies to a thread about something that is extremely old and no one cares about anymore. For example, imagine a forum which discusses operating systems, and there's a new thread created announcing new features in a new OS release. Someone now goes ahead and then comments on some new feature items in the Windows 98 release thread.
The above idea can be worse when a thread is about whether something should be done or not, and many years after it was done, people chime in their opinion to say they think it shouldn't be done.
But in general Warp, you're right. I don't know why in most cases people act like this. If the reply is on topic and relavent, I don't get the fuss. I once ran into a problem which after a Google hunt brought me to a thread which was 4 months old. None of the solutions worked. I replied to the thread explaining that I was having the same issue, and detailing why none of the suggested solutions worked, does anyone else have any ideas? Next thing, an admin locks the thread with a reply regarding thread necromancy, and that I should make a new thread. Real intelligent...
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Imo necroposting is only bad (should be discouraged) in situations like:
-The topic was about something very temporal (like a version of a piece of software that no one has any right to be on anymore) that is no longer relevant.
-There is a more up to date or relevant topic on the same subject that would be better to necrobump instead.
-The topic is strictly about discussing the OP, or another person, and the OP/person is no longer in need of discussion.
-The topic is chatroom style (like how the mspaintadventures forum has a stickied topic about discussing what's going on in the comic in chat room style, and every time it gets too long it's closed and a new one made, because they are intended to have merely temporal nature)
Otherwise, necrobumping keeps forums clean of duplicate, redundant and unncessary threads, and helps consolidate all information about a single thing into one thread.
Nercroposting can create a lot of confusion when people see old threads, not realizing they're old, and start responding to things that are no longer relevant.
Nercroposting can create a lot of confusion when people see old threads, not realizing they're old, and start responding to things that are no longer relevant.
Yeah, I think this is the main reason for rules in other forums. If all the posts on the front page are new except #4, which is 6 years old, only has a few posts, and has a title like "Contest Submissions Due Tomorrow!", bad things can happen.
"ais523 wrote:
I'm disappointed that this isn't a bump to a years-old thread :( Someone go bump it in 2018.
And yes, if you have something new to say and there's an appropriate thread to say it in, the age of the thread doesn't matter. Multiple threads on the same topic just makes it harder to find information.
I resolved to come back and do this as soon as I saw the title ^_^
I have seen some pretty epic thread necros here, I think there was like an 8 year one a while ago? I'm way too lazy to try to find it though.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
