# Bumping Old Threads vs. Creating Redundant Ones



## Fanille (Sep 3, 2009)

Someone was talking to me over Ventrilo the other day about how he hated it when people bumped old threads, which got me thinking about how it annoys me when people make threads to discuss topics that are already discussed in other threads.

So which of these is more annoying to you, and why?

Personally, I don't have a problem with bumping old threads as long as the post that bumps the thread actually contributes something useful. Of course, post-whoring in any form should not be encouraged, but if someone wants to bring up an old topic, why shouldn't they? And just because a thread is old doesn't mean there are posts that aren't worth reading.

On the other hand, creating redundant threads clutters forums. This isn't a huge issue when it comes to threads that are more than several months old, but with more recent threads it does annoy me.

That said, I don't think either is a serious issue here right now; I was just wondering what you all thought.


----------



## Aerorobyn (Nov 11, 2009)

You should have made an "I don't care" option for the people who really don't get annoyed by either one. 

I'm tempted to vote, but I don't know how to vote since I don't get annoyed. Grrrr.


----------



## Siggy (May 25, 2009)

Creating new threads. It just seems redundant to recreate an existing thread. Especially with the topics which have been beaten to death.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob (Jan 1, 2010)

I can't help but think of the 20 or so music themed threads when I saw this thread...


----------



## Psilo (Apr 29, 2009)

There's good content in old threads that are worth reading, but won't necessarily be repeated. Either the parties have left or just don't want to repeat themselves. 

And how many "What's the difference between XXXX and XXXX?" threads do we really need?


----------



## talk (Apr 14, 2010)

Merely bumping old threads would eventually kill the forum. New, even if redundant, threads are what keep a forum lively and functioning and give newer members better opportunity to engage in threads veterans might have already seen before but newer members themselves haven't seen or participated in.

Old people have had their fun - why not let the younger generation have theirs? I'll be damned if I have to look through dusty archives.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

It really depends on the content of the threads. Something more debate-based a new one is ok, but if it's more explanation based (explaining the functions etc.) then bumping is more logical/


----------



## Fanille (Sep 3, 2009)

talk said:


> Merely bumping old threads would eventually kill the forum. New, even if redundant, threads are what keep a forum lively and functioning and give newer members better opportunity to engage in threads veterans might have already seen before but newer members themselves haven't seen or participated in.
> 
> Old people have had their fun - why not let the younger generation have theirs? I'll be damned if I have to look through dusty archives.


I don't see how bumping threads kills a forum, though. By bringing old threads back to the top of a forum it allows the newer members to see threads they may not have otherwise seen.


----------



## Trope (Oct 18, 2008)

If it's a personal thread, especially one of an immediately pressing nature, make a new one. Throwing in your own two cents on something the OP handled and most likely forgot about a year ago is a waste of everyone's time. 

If it's a general topic, bump your heart out.

There's suitable poll option for me, so I abstain. They can both be annoying.


----------



## OmarFW (Apr 8, 2010)

oops I voted for the wrong one. i hate new threads about the same thing.


----------



## Tatl33 (Apr 26, 2010)

I like seeing old threads but I hate when people create copies of other threads or very similar threads so I'd have to say I get more annoyed when people create redundant threads.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Dredging up old topics from the murky depths annoys me sometimes, but it depends on how old it is; I'd say that in general, considering the turnover of forums, any topic older than 6 months may as well be started fresh with a new thread. I agree with the exception of "explanation" threads, but often these are pinned if they are good for everyone to review.

When an older thread gets really loooong, it can also be overwhelming to have to read through it all before commenting (especially when the end has often turned into a banter fest). Then there's the issue that few people will check the new response because they'll consider the issue covered since it's an old thread. The participation is devalued in a sense, and that's discouraging to new posters. It basically prevents newer people form engaging in discussions simply because others have already discussed it. And with the turnover on forums, encouraging new posters to engage in discussion by posting & not just reading is important to keeping a board alive. Boards are about interaction, not merely reading information.

I mean, put yourself in the shoes of a new poster....if I came here & had people scolding me for asking questions which they learned the answer to a long time ago, or bringing up topics they already discussed a year ago, then I'd probably leave & never come back. If you've already discussed a topic and don't feel inclined to do so again, then just ignore it & leave it for other people to address.


----------



## talk (Apr 14, 2010)

MannyP said:


> I don't see how bumping threads kills a forum, though. By bringing old threads back to the top of a forum it allows the newer members to see threads they may not have otherwise seen.


Well, I did say "merely" bumping old threads. If there's a choice between exclusively bumping old threads and exclusively creating new threads, I should think that the forum that only bumps old threads would be more likely to die than the forum that only creates new threads. I say this as someone who's seen forums die under my very eyes.

I actually agree with what's already been said - that it depends on the thread. Hell, I don't even care either way. Either way, there's discussion, and where there's discussion, there's vitality, and the forum is being kept alive.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)




----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Oh, definitely repeation. Though new people to the fourm, aren't to know.


----------



## AutumnTiger (May 23, 2010)

Well....now your annoyed.


----------



## Andrea (Apr 20, 2009)

OmarFW said:


> oops I voted for the wrong one. i hate new threads about the same thing.


totally fine, i negated yours with my wrong vote.


----------



## MissBlossom (Dec 22, 2010)

Oh no, I voted wrong :/ I am FOR bumping old threads.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

I'm not into necro-ing old threads. However, given the choice, I'd say do it. The problems I could see with this approach involve the accessibility of the old thread and the motivation (or laziness) of the person to search it out (or not do so).


----------



## Kyandigaru (Mar 11, 2012)

Aerorobyn said:


> You should have made an "I don't care" option for the people who really don't get annoyed by either one.
> 
> I'm tempted to vote, but I don't know how to vote since I don't get annoyed. Grrrr.


i dont get annoyed either.


----------

