New thread vs adding on to an old thread?

[DHansen]

Just thinking about when I keep adding on to an old post that I think is on the same topic.  But wonder if it is irritating to the original poster that his/her thread is being highjacked.  I know threads drift and conversations flow.  But a new thread may be cleaner for future searches to address a problem or answer a question.

What are the opinions on this?  

[Crusarius]

I like both ideas for both reasons mentioned. But a lot of times the older thread addition is nicer because it is all in one location. Even with the thread drift we always end up with, there is a good majority of posts that are still on topic. Unlike some other forums I visit that have 3 pages of people saying search noob and 1 useful post in that mess.

So this post was unhelpful  but on topic

[beenthere]

For searching, I think it mostly depends on the subject title.  Searchable, or just unrelated words?

[Crusarius]

you mean like "another build thread"

That is something that bugs me. When I start a build thread like my sawmill I put my username Linn Lumber and sawmill build in the topic. Important searchable terms. I am pretty sure if anyone searches google for linn lumber they come straight here.

When I was researching, Linn Lumber did not have a very good web presence at all. Not sure if they do now or not. But at least ppl can come here and read my experiences.

[Magicman]

But wonder if it is irritating to the original poster that his/her thread is being highjacked.

The thread/topic belongs to the Forestry Forum, not the original poster (OP) and he/she has no ownership nor "say so" about any of the replies.  There is very often topic drift and unrelated stuff is added but most of the time the topic will get to food and then eventually back on track.  The Forestry Forum is unlike any of the other "forums" that are floating around on the internet.  

Adding a new topic very often fragments and looses much of the knowledge/experience that has been shared on the original topic.  Many times the admins will combine related topics to prevent this fragmentation.

[doc henderson]

when I need a boost (daily)  I look at my likes.  it makes me feel great to see a like to a post from several years ago.  it means in addition to the info at the time, that others are finding it useful still.  often there is an addition, and the ones that liked it, read the whole thing for the first time.  

[DHansen]

Appreciate the input and points of view.  There are lots of old threads with valuable information and ideas.  The photos are also helpful.

[Spike60]

Some courtesey/respect to the OP IMO is in keeping with the civil nature of this forum vs almost everything else out there. But there's probably no need to be too concerned about this. Sometimes the OP's question is answered and the discussion drifts, yet it can still be a good one. In that case, there shouldn't be a feeling that we all need to "get up and leave the room" either.

I agree with the guys above about keeping a lot of good info in one place. But if there's a feeling that you have a fresh topic that warrants a new thread then that's fine.

[Real1shepherd]

The moderators don't like to see a long string discussion where the same people are quoted over and over again. Apparently, that's some egregious thing you're not supposed to do here. I even remember one time a threat to ban anyone that quoted the string again.

Kevin

[Jeff]

Ok kevin, whats your real point here. Sounds like an axe needs ground. I dont play games with admining, and I dont expect members to play games with us on things like purposely trying to stack dozens of quotes. Yer darn tootin we might threaten a ban when warnings are not heeded.

[DHansen]

Makes sense about multiple quote, and I suspect reposting the same photo several times in the same thread is just unnecessary and burning up bandwidth.  

[doc henderson]

It is similar to adding a tag to someone you are responding to.  I like it, so I can see the thread.  others do not want it if it is a thread, they are already involved in.  I especially do it if it is to bring in experts that I feel can contribute most.  I often do it if I was going to state that person's name anyway.  I was told that including a picture does not use more space as it resides in the gallary and does not hurt to add it to several threads

[Jeff]

True, one picture in the gallery can be used on multiple threads. It should burn everyone's behind when some one uploads the same photo over and over, and then sometimes never uses it. I have no was to know that happens unless someone accidently runs across it. The person that did it does though.

I detest seeing someone's name tagged in a topic if that person is already active in the converstion. 

[doc henderson]

all good information! I would have not known without these conversations.

[DHansen]

I'm learning.  I understand the photos better now.

[Real1shepherd]

Ok kevin, whats your real point here. Sounds like an axe needs ground. I dont play games with admining, and I dont expect members to play games with us on things like purposely trying to stack dozens of quotes. Yer darn tootin we might threaten a ban when warnings are not heeded.

No axe to grind Jeff, at all. I was just watching a thread once and no one was arguing...then a moderator exploded about multiple quotes and threatened to ban the next person who did that.

I was dumbstruck...I had no idea and never saw that before on any other forum. Is it a bandwidth issue, or how does it screw things up?

Kevin

[Real1shepherd]

In other forums, if you try to do multiple quote strings it automatically drops off the oldest quotes. I guess that's why I was surprised at the issue here. Just trying to learn, not to jab. 8)

Kevin

[WDH]

What I don't like is when the very next poster replies to previous post but quotes the post that was just posted.  Totally redundant. 

[doc henderson]

I agree with that.  you can also hit the quote button, but backspace and delete all but the part of the prev. post that is pertinent to your f/u comment.  It then makes more sense than quoting the whole thing including 4 pictures.  We are all learning.  

[DHansen]

Hearing from the Administrator and Moderators points of view is excellent information.  Helping me out for sure.

[Real1shepherd]

I agree with that.  you can also hit the quote button, but backspace and delete all but the part of the prev. post that is pertinent to your f/u comment.  It then makes more sense than quoting the whole thing including 4 pictures.  We are all learning.  

That's what I do now.....snip old all the old stuff and just show at most, two quotes before I reply. Hope that helps. That's another thing the other forums do....they must have auto software to do this....the pics are gone unless you want to see.

Kevin

[Spike60]

OMG, I recall that thread where the quotes got way out of control. It was repetitive, annoying, and stupid to keep stacking them up like that. It became nothing but clutter and it wasn't necessary in order to follow the conversation. In fact it made it harder to follow. Honestly, I was going say something to the effect of can we lighten up on the quote button when Jeff stepped in and thankfully ended the misery.

A simple and cleaner way to respond to something a few posts back without needing the quote function is simply to use the person's name. "Doc, I've seen that a few times myself", "Dan, they used a different ignition that year." "Mike, regarding that whatever.." Cuts down on the clutter, especially if you are referencing just one point from a long post.