# New Anti-Bumping/Old Thread Feature



## MMiz (Nov 15, 2008)

There is nothing more frustrating than reading a user reply to a thread that was last active in 2004.  

In order to address this issue, we've added a warning message to threads that are more than 90 days old.  It is still possible to reply to the tread, but the user is encouraged to start a new thread if they feel it is necessary (see attachment).

Hopefully this will help in creating a better community.


----------



## mycrofft (Nov 15, 2008)

*Thanks! A great solution.*

Now how about one which makes your job easier spotting similarities in post/thread terminology?


----------



## ffemt8978 (Nov 15, 2008)

mycrofft said:


> Now how about one which makes your job easier spotting similarities in post/thread terminology?



That's what we have Jon for...


----------



## stephenrb81 (Nov 15, 2008)

It's a catch-22 situation actually

"Newbie" posts something that has been posted and gets told to search

OR.....

"Newbie" actually searches and find a thread that is similar to what they are looking to discuss and get chastised for resurrecting an old thread



Damned if you do, Damned if you don't


----------



## VentMedic (Nov 15, 2008)

stephenrb81 said:


> It's a catch-22 situation actually
> 
> "Newbie" posts something that has been posted and gets told to search
> 
> ...


 
Agree.

The forum has gotten rather discouraging to some newcomers.   I consider myself an experienced searcher but sometimes have difficulty finding the thread that I know exists.


----------



## traumateam1 (Nov 15, 2008)

stephenrb81 said:


> It's a catch-22 situation actually
> 
> "Newbie" posts something that has been posted and gets told to search
> 
> ...



I completely agree.
So someone new comes in and starts a thread, thats old. So they get in poo poo for starting another thread on an old item, and not doing a search. 
Someone new comes in and does a search, brings up and old thread, than gets in poo poo for not doing a search.
Hmm..


----------



## traumateam1 (Nov 15, 2008)

I personally don't see a problem with:
a) Someone bringing up an old thread. So what, they weren't around when it was being discussed. What big harm does it do? If you have already posted what your opinion is, than fine.. don't re post. Why is it such a big deal?
b) Someone starting a new thread on an old item. Again, they weren't around when it was discussed. Again, what harm does it do? And again, if you have already posted your two cents, or your opinion than fine.. don't re post.

If someone new comes in and sees a thread that's 6 months old and it is interesting to them, or they have a strong point of view than why do we jump on people to stop digging up old threads?

If there is an old thread, that has been brought back to life, or a new thread started on an old topic and you don't wanna go there again, than don't. But maybe other people do? Isn't this an online forum where we can freely talk about EMS, and EMS related stuff? So why enforce something that isn't such a big deal?


----------



## reaper (Nov 15, 2008)

Because most don't add anything useful to an old thread. The OP may not even be around any longer. If they have something meaningful to add, then start a new one. Search is used so you don't ask a question that has been answered a hundred times. If they don't find what they are looking for, then they ask in a new post!


----------



## traumateam1 (Nov 15, 2008)

reaper said:


> *Because most don't add anything useful to an old thread.* The OP may not even be around any longer. If they have something meaningful to add, then start a new one. Search is used so you don't ask a question that has been answered a hundred times. If they don't find what they are looking for, then they ask in a new post!



So? What harm does it do? So they add something that isn't useful.. why is it such a big deal? 
Sorry, I just cant seem to understand why it's been such a big deal to dig up an old thread... If someone doesn't offer any good or useful information for the thread than you wasted x amount of time reading it... And life goes on...

Sorry reaper if this is harsh, it's not a directed attack towards you at all. Just a comments to all those who are against it.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Nov 15, 2008)

reaper said:


> Because most don't add anything useful to an old thread. The OP may not even be around any longer. If they have something meaningful to add, then start a new one. Search is used so you don't ask a question that has been answered a hundred times. If they don't find what they are looking for, then they ask in a new post!



While that may be true, there is no need for some of the hostility that has been shown lately in these types of threads.  Let's give this system a chance, and knock off the comments about using the search or bringing back a thread from the dead.


----------



## silver (Nov 15, 2008)

This is a pretty nice addition.

Wouldn't new threads (and posts) decrease almost to zero as time passes if people say to search for the old thread every time? Basically everything would have been said at one point except for like news and advertisement/sales threads. It is a very anti-community message to promote. Now if it is an active thread, I would definitely point them in that direction.


----------



## MMiz (Nov 16, 2008)

It's my personal belief that an online forum such as ours has 90% of the same discussion over... and over... and over again, with about 10% new topics.  This is true of almost all online communities.  

I'd much rather see a user start a new thread with most topics, but there are always the most basic questions that really can be answered with a search.  I find it frustrating with a member goes back and digs up really old threads and replies.  This thread will hopefully address that issue, while we need to all be more aware of our demeanor when helping new members.


----------



## tydek07 (Nov 16, 2008)

MMiz said:


> There is nothing more frustrating than reading a user reply to a thread that was last active in 2004.
> 
> In order to address this issue, we've added a warning message to threads that are more than 90 days old.  It is still possible to reply to the tread, but the user is encouraged to start a new thread if they feel it is necessary (see attachment).
> 
> Hopefully this will help in creating a better community.



Good idea! Hopefully that will cut down on people digging up old, old threads


----------



## KEVD18 (Nov 16, 2008)

there will always be new issues. a unique call, new gear etc. this is where new threads come into play. what no forum needs is someone starting a thread on what pants to buy, getting some responses, and then have someone 9 months later bring the thread back up with a valueless comment. 

also, there are some topics that get brough up over and over and over again(-b  v. -p, vollie v. paid, private v. fire v. thirs service ems etc etc). very little is likely to change in the arguments for each side, so all it turns into is a big fight. everybody picks a side and the battlle is on. this does no good for the forum. people get all pissed off at each other. peolle get punished/banned etc. and we're not talking infrequent here. one of these ugly debates comes up no less than monthly, always with the same result.

as everybody knows, im the forums biggest proponent of searching before you post. its my biggest pet peeve. i think if properly utilized, this could be a great feature.


----------



## Sasha (Nov 17, 2008)

MMiz said:


> There is nothing more frustrating than reading a user reply to a thread that was last active in 2004.
> 
> In order to address this issue, we've added a warning message to threads that are more than 90 days old.  It is still possible to reply to the tread, but the user is encouraged to start a new thread if they feel it is necessary (see attachment).
> 
> Hopefully this will help in creating a better community.



Ooooh. I think Kev is so excited he peed a little


----------



## BossyCow (Nov 20, 2008)

So, we have a minimum number of posts needed before you can chat. But those posts can't be a new thread on an old topic and you can't post to an old topic with a new question. I'm glad I have my minimum met!


----------



## aandjmayne (Nov 20, 2008)

Maybe for the new comers (as I am one of them) there can be a post or something regarding Searches. explaining how and when to use them.. maybe emailed?? then there wouldnt be so much confusion or people getting put in deep doo doo when they knew no better.


----------



## admemt1982 (Mar 31, 2011)

heres an idea.... how bout getting rid of threads that are nearly 4 years old without a comment..... hows that bumping an old thread....activating ninja emt smileh34r:


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 31, 2011)

...because old threads are just hidden treasures...


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Mar 31, 2011)

Doesn't that kind of count as bumping? Even if this is a bumping thread? :huh:


----------



## firetender (Apr 1, 2011)

lightsandsirens5 said:


> Doesn't that kind of count as bumping? Even if this is a bumping thread? :huh:



This thread is from 2008!

It was functionally bumped until you bumped into it. Now it's just irrelevant.


----------



## Gecko24 (Apr 22, 2011)

firetender said:


> This thread is from 2008!
> 
> It was functionally bumped until you bumped into it. Now it's just irrelevant.





What, no  bumping of old post?  How do I spam?


----------



## firetender (Apr 22, 2011)

Gecko24 said:


> What, no  bumping of old post?  How do I spam?



As you search for a way, I'll be watching!


----------



## Gecko24 (Apr 22, 2011)

firetender said:


> as you search for a way, i'll be watching!



lol


----------

