Reply
Replying to old posts..
Old 07-14-2003, 01:13 AM Replying to old posts..
Jonathan's Avatar
Super Talker

Posts: 106
Location: Ohio :|
I've seen it on other forums, can't remember which ones specifically.. but it would be nice if old posts wouldn't be moved to the top of the list.

I seems like a lot of posts get replies after 10 or 20 days.

Of course, it may just be me. But I find it kinda annoying, mainly since the people replying are usually new, and might simply be agreeing with a point, as in "Yeah, I agree". I'm sure some don't realize that the post is old. But it throws the posts list outta whack.

IMHO and the opinion of the banana.
Jonathan is offline
Reply With Quote
View Public Profile
 
When You Register, These Ads Go Away!
Old 07-14-2003, 11:48 AM
DaveMo~'s Avatar
Administrator
Defies A Status

Posts: 10,209
Name: Dave
Location: Scott Depot, West Virginia, USA
How would we differentiate between ones that needed a reply and those that don't? Or are you suggesting that once a thread hits so old it doesn't go to the top anymore?

On the other hand, I've seen threads that were more than 10 days old and it was still continuing on with the same discussion. However, I have seen posts that were answered 2 months ago and then someone new answer it again.

Dave
DaveMo~ is offline
Reply With Quote
View Public Profile Visit DaveMo~'s homepage!
 
Old 07-14-2003, 07:26 PM
Jonathan's Avatar
Super Talker

Posts: 106
Location: Ohio :|
It really wouldn't work to differentiate between threads that 'need' a reply and those that don't, since it would likely just come down to the opinion of the moderator.

I think that if a thread reaches a certain age, then it shouldn't go to the top. 10 days is probably too short, maybe 30 days or something like that?

If an old post really needs mentioned, then the person can just start a new post and refer back to it.
Jonathan is offline
Reply With Quote
View Public Profile
 
Old 07-16-2003, 08:34 PM
DaveMo~'s Avatar
Administrator
Defies A Status

Posts: 10,209
Name: Dave
Location: Scott Depot, West Virginia, USA
I think I can agree with that. Would you recommend the 30 day clock start the moment a thread is posted? That might be the only way of doing that.

Dave
DaveMo~ is offline
Reply With Quote
View Public Profile Visit DaveMo~'s homepage!
 
Old 07-16-2003, 08:35 PM
Jonathan's Avatar
Super Talker

Posts: 106
Location: Ohio :|
The 30 day clock sounds good. I mean, usually a discussion lasts a duration of days, so 30 days is plenty of time.
Jonathan is offline
Reply With Quote
View Public Profile
 
Old 08-12-2003, 08:19 PM
nakulgoyal's Avatar
#1Search Engine Optimizer

Posts: 376
Location: Chandigarh, India
Yes. That would make things always FRESH here at WT. What do u say Chief ?
__________________
Nakul Goyal
M.Sc (Information Technology), MCP, Brainbench 'MVP', BCIP, CIW Associate

* SEO Expert * IT Tips
nakulgoyal is offline
Reply With Quote
View Public Profile Visit nakulgoyal's homepage!
 
Old 08-12-2003, 08:23 PM
Cagez's Avatar
Skilled Talker

Posts: 62
lol

Good thing its not a 26 day clock
Cagez is offline
Reply With Quote
View Public Profile
 
Old 08-12-2003, 09:29 PM
Jonathan's Avatar
Super Talker

Posts: 106
Location: Ohio :|
I think this would be really nice. There seems to be some people (no names) who reply to old posts.. I personally find it annoying.

I don't have a problem with replies, of course. But I think when the reply comes 3 weeks to 4 weeks later, and slightly not related, or not necessarily important.
Jonathan is offline
Reply With Quote
View Public Profile
 
Reply     « Reply to Replying to old posts..
 

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Webmaster Resources Marketplace:
Software Development Company | Webhosting.UK.com | Text Link Brokers 


   
RSS Feed  Feeds: RSS   JS   XML
RSS Feed  Feeds for this forum: RSS   JS   XML

 


Page generated in 0.14458 seconds with 12 queries