32 replies to this topic

[tracer]

old posts are left on the forum for reference purposes. it may be that someone will find a tidbit of info that they can use from an old post. i know i have.

when you are considering replying to a topic, please note the date of the topic you're replying to and the date of the last several posts in it. there is no point in "answering" someone who asked a questions several years ago and hasn't been on the forum since. there is also no point in asking them a question about their post. when someone does that stuff, then others don't notice and pile on, and the topic is suddenly walking around again, looking for brains to eat. (do zombies really do that?!)

if there's something important in an old post that you want to point out to the current crowd, start a new topic, reference the value of the information in the old post, noting that it's an old post, and link to it or reference the info with attribution.

if you noticed somebody asked a question a year ago and that person is still an active member and you know the answer to the question, by all means pm them and tell them the answer. they might go "huh?", but they also might go "thank you! thank you!"

[Frank Menser]

.......I'm trying to remember.....

[fig rocks]

tracer, on 02 November 2009 - 09:06 AM, said:

old posts are left on the forum for reference purposes. it may be that someone will find a tidbit of info that they can use from an old post. i know i have.

I'm just wondering what would be reference-able in this post or where the tidbit of info would be???My link

[Auspex]

Suppose the original poster turns up; they could replace the photos. In the mean time, the lower sediment layer doesn't take up any space...

While we're at it, this is a prime example of why it is preferable to post pictures directly to the Forum instead of using an off-site link.

[MikeD]

Auspex, on 02 November 2009 - 03:01 PM, said:

Suppose the original poster turns up; they could replace the photos. In the mean time, the lower sediment layer doesn't take up any space...

While we're at it, this is a prime example of why it is preferable to post pictures directly to the Forum instead of using an off-site link.

Another reason of why it is preferable to post pictures directly to the Forum instead of using an off-site link is that some work places have internet filters and other network defenses which block out things like flickr, photobucket, youtube, etc. So, when I browse the forum at work, I don't get to see some of the posted pictures until I get home.

[fig rocks]

Auspex, on 02 November 2009 - 03:01 PM, said:

Suppose the original poster turns up; they could replace the photos. In the mean time, the lower sediment layer doesn't take up any space...

While we're at it, this is a prime example of why it is preferable to post pictures directly to the Forum instead of using an off-site link.

Aaah, I see! Well, I'm glad I bumped that thread, now we've obtained valuable info on pic posting.

[tracer]

fig rocks, on 02 November 2009 - 02:34 PM, said:

I'm just wondering what would be reference-able in this post or where the tidbit of info would be???My link

not that i feel any obligation to explain the point, nor understand why an explanation is desired, but...

the poster might come back, as she has before, and might reactivate the photo account, and the pictures' links might still be functional. even if they aren't, at least she would know the names and could re-upload the pictures.

the poster could have their fossils stolen or destroyed and come back here looking for listings of what she'd posted.

the poster might forget the name of something in her collection and come back here to refresh her memory.

some of the fossils listed are scarce and desirable, and somebody who wanted some for their collection might look up the profile of the poster and go try to find her on the other website she listed as a hangout to ask for the missing photos and/or if any of the fossils were available, or where they came from.

somebody might be researching who all has a particular one of the fossils in their collection and get a hit on the listing on a search engine.

somebody might be trying to make a list of very old shark fossils in people's collections.

etc. ad nauseum.

management of the forum chose not to go through an arduous process of deciding what all is "useful" to whom for the purpose of trashing stuff, which is a good thing, as long as the storage space is adequate for the board's purposes.

what is clear is that it isn't worth a great many hours of splitting hairs over what should be done away with when storage is cheap and available, and properly used search functions can locate needed info and ignore unneeded info.

[fig rocks]

Thank's for taking the time tracer, alot of good info there!

[Bear]

My $.02, for what its worth:

Sometimes someone will hit a board while they are really bored. (wording was deliberate) They look around for an interesting topic to get involved in, only to find that everyone has gone off to take a nap or eat lunch. There are no hot threads cooking to get into, so they go looking harder for something interesting. When they find that though, it is on a thread that has not seen any action since the Cambrian. They go ahead and post to the thread anyways because it is better than doing nothing and you can feel like you are engaged and participating.

Being a free speech advocate myself, I understand leaving old threads to be seen and not simply discarding them. Having been bored before myself and looking for something to get involved in, I can understand bumping an old thread to try and get it fired up again. Sometimes that happens accidentally when you don't check the date of that last post. All of this understanding doesn't mean that I am going to bump old threads though.

My experience with web sites is this - they live or die by the site content. I have experimentally verified that to my own satisfaction. Here, this would mean the threads and the thread topics and the galleries that support them. These are generated by the members. The more excited and involved a member, the more likely they are to start up a new thread and post up a bunch of pix. Whether the topic, the content and the pix are relevant, polished, professional, informational or whatever, the important thing is that those new threads get made and put up. A bit of controversy raises the emotional level and makes the reading and participating experience more exciting for everyone involved.

Case in point here is Nick's thread on his 'fossil coconut'. Instead of razzing him or dry - lecturing him, I chose to address his topic seriously. I posted up a bunch of newly added on - site photos to illustrate my point. Others joined in and we have a discussion going. It is interesting and informative, gives us some action and opportunity to talk about a bunch of related issues. Quite frankly, Nick is contributing quite nicely to the site with his threads and I think that we should all be grateful to him for his ongoing interest and effort, as well as the opportunity to expound on our own areas of expertise. He is setting a good example for others with his efforts.

I do hope that we all enjoyed that little twist on the topic as much as I enjoyed writing it.

[tracer]

um, bear, i like coming here because it's the only place on the planet where i'm nore mormal than pome of the other seople. maybe. but i get your ponit, maybe.

so here's a picture of my "worry stone", that i had on my desk, but that's now missing, so i might have dropped it in the forum somewhere, so if you're bored, instead of reading old posts, would you look for it? now that i don't have it, i'm worried about it, plus i don't have anything to do but make posts like this...



p.s. - my "worry stone" looks like an ankle bone, so it's prolly from an ankle-o-saur.

[Bear]

Ouch! That actually hurt when I read it, Tracer. I think the ankle - o - saur went extinct with the invention of the gelled sole running shoe though, that and support hose.

Oh, I am always looking for a silver lining, I end up with more of those than gray clouds to go with them. They do go well with a medium grade Cabernet however....

The normal thing...I am going to have to take the fifth on that.

[siteseer]

tracer, on 02 November 2009 - 09:06 AM, said:

old posts are left on the forum for reference purposes. it may be that someone will find a tidbit of info that they can use from an old post. i know i have.

if there's something important in an old post that you want to point out to the current crowd, start a new topic, reference the value of the information in the old post, noting that it's an old post, and link to it or reference the info with attribution.

if you noticed somebody asked a question a year ago and that person is still an active member and you know the answer to the question, by all means pm them and tell them the answer. they might go "huh?", but they also might go "thank you! thank you!"

Tracer,

Are you actually asking that members not dig into the past? Not long ago, I was praised for reigniting an old thread from a moderator/administrator (I won't name names) so I'm a little confused. I would think the forum would encourage bumping because there is some interesting stuff back there (not just dead links or missing photos). A newbie to the forum doesn't mean he or she is a beginner and that person might have something significant to add on a particular point from way back in 2008. Yeah, that person could start a new thread and refer back to the old one with a link but when you're focused on commenting on a post with a thought to proper grammar and forum etiquette, you might forget it was from a month or a year ago. At what point is a thread a zombie - page 2 or 10?

Personally, I joined earlier this year. Since then, I have tried to keep up with the most recent stuff and have also gone back to the first threads of a few categories to see what I missed and have reawakened the dead myself a few times. I didn't think of it as creating zombies. If I did, I guess I'd want to shoot them too.

[fig rocks]

siteseer, on 07 November 2009 - 10:01 PM, said:

Tracer,

Are you actually asking that members not dig into the past? Not long ago, I was praised for reigniting an old thread from a moderator/administrator (I won't name names) so I'm a little confused. I would think the forum would encourage bumping because there is some interesting stuff back there (not just dead links or missing photos). A newbie to the forum doesn't mean he or she is a beginner and that person might have something significant to add on a particular point from way back in 2008. Yeah, that person could start a new thread and refer back to the old one with a link but when you're focused on commenting on a post with a thought to proper grammar and forum etiquette, you might forget it was from a month or a year ago. At what point is a thread a zombie - page 2 or 10?

Personally, I joined earlier this year. Since then, I have tried to keep up with the most recent stuff and have also gone back to the first threads of a few categories to see what I missed and have reawakened the dead myself a few times. I didn't think of it as creating zombies. If I did, I guess I'd want to shoot them too.

I agree with you siteseer, I recently resurrected a bunch of old threads which I had never read before and numerous people commented that they were pleased to see the threads, some of which I see are still going around. New people join all the time and it's always new for them. If some of the older members that have read the threads before don't like it they can always use that manual feature and not click on the post!

[Auspex]

Speaking for myself, I love to see stuff come up for air, as long as there is some point to it's exhumation. Replying "Welcome to the forum" to a year-old intro doesn't make much sense (yes, this has happened; more than once).

[siteseer]

Auspex, on 07 November 2009 - 10:28 PM, said:

Speaking for myself, I love to see stuff come up for air, as long as there is some point to it's exhumation. Replying "Welcome to the forum" to a year-old intro doesn't make much sense (yes, this has happened; more than once).

Fig Rocks and Auspex,

Yeah, I like that old stuff, especially if it's a thread involving friends. I can see frowning on bumping with posts that offer just another quick agreeing opinion to a group of them. To paraphrase Jim Rome, if you're going to add a comment, make it a good one. I told isurus90064 that I liked the thread which ended up with two Texas guys talking barbecue. I could have piled on but it would have been pointless to say, "Hi, I like barbecue too."

[Nicholas]

It is a case by case type of judgment.

In my opinion things that should not be Necro'd back:

Ancient Fossil trip reports
Old IDs
Old Introductions
and old questions which have been answered already

There are very few old posts that I would actually like to see resurfaced, now with that said I don't mind members digging in the archives and finding stuff but really stuff that is more than a few months old is usually laid to rest and should remain so.

[tracer]

"Are you actually asking that members not dig into the past?"

did my post state that?

no, i did not say that fossil lovers shouldn't dig into the past. what i said was that they should follow certain concepts in how they do so in order to not create mental whiplash for others or inadvertently talk to people who aren't here and haven't been for a long time.

there is a literary technique sometimes used in which an author begins a story "in media res" (in the middle of things), where the story starts in the middle and at some point has "flashbacks" so the reader begins understanding what the heck is happening. the technique can be effective, but it can also be tortured and confusing. i don't think it should be used very often, as it can seem too contrived, like trying to pick up a date in a cheap bar using a fake accent.

so someone posts, "wow, nice fossils!" on a year-old thread. somebody else goes, "yeah! can you post some more of those? where did you get them?" and somebody further goes, "i have thirty eleven of those, but mine look different from yours. any idea why?" and then i go and look up the profile of the person who posted the original material and find that they were last here a year ago, for one post, where they joined to ask their one question, and never came back.

so my observation above was that a poster here should do something like start a post and say, "hey, there are some fossils pictured in this old thread, that i hadn't noticed before, and i think they're worth seeing. i have some similar in my collection, but they look a bit different. anybody know why?" and then link to the old material.

[Ron E.]

Suggestion: set posts which have not had comments in, say, six months to read-only. Have a link which allows requesting its reopening. That way, a bit of effort will be required to pound on the chest of an old topic.

[Auspex]

<mental image: tracer smearing jelly on the paddles and yelling "clear!">

[siteseer]

Ron E., on 08 November 2009 - 11:23 AM, said:

Suggestion: set posts which have not had comments in, say, six months to read-only. Have a link which allows requesting its reopening. That way, a bit of effort will be required to pound on the chest of an old topic.

I don't like that idea. This forum hasn't been around that long so I don't understand why posts from six months to a year ago are being less-than-appreciated. Although, even if it had been around 10 years, I don't see the problem. I think members should be encouraged to comment on anything posted. "Mental whiplash" is no more irritating than someone starting a particular topic that was already discussed at length six months ago. In either case the last thing you want to do is to discourage enthusiasm.