Year old thread bumps are pretty awesome.

[Stealthdjentstic]

Well, they called us on it..

 

[Daemoniac]

I know

 

[NegaTiveXero]

I'm going to wait for this thread to die and bump it in 2 years.

 

[All_¥our_Bass]

I'm going to wait for this thread to die and bump it in 2 years.

Oh, the irony.

What gets me is when old threads are bumped, and the post is some rant about a topic we discussed a year ago, which is equivalent to 100 years ago on the internet.

 

[MFB]

WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS WORD TOMFOOLERY?! I AM NO MANS TOOL, I WORK FOR WOMANKIND CAPSLOCKoff

 

[Konfyouzd]

WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS WORD TOMFOOLERY?! I AM NO MANS TOOL, I WORK FOR WOMANKIND CAPSLOCKoff

some clever bastard named tom?

 

[hufschmid]

question:

Why dont they simply delate old threads?

This way old threads could not be bumped...

Old threads simply fill up the database and slow things down anyway....

I mean if an old thread is bumped by a new member who is not aware and did not read the date etc...., he cant be blamed because he is not aware of this situation at first

 

[E Lucevan Le Stelle]

question:

Why dont they simply delate old threads?

This way old threads could not be bumped...

Old threads simply fill up the database and slow things down anyway....

I mean if an old thread is bumped by a new member who is not aware and did not read the date etc...., he cant be blamed because he is not aware of this situation at first

Because sometimes there's something worth reading in old threads... of course nowadays all the threads are about bacon so we might as well delete them in a couple of months

 

[hufschmid]

Because sometimes there's something worth reading in old threads... of course nowadays all the threads are about bacon so we might as well delete them in a couple of months

I would litterally LMAO

The day that somebody posts a thread which has already been posted 5 years ago and that somebody writes:

''old news........ ''link'' ''

pointing to a 5 years old thread

That would be epic win!

 

[vampiregenocide]

question:

Why dont they simply delate old threads?

This way old threads could not be bumped...

Old threads simply fill up the database and slow things down anyway....

I mean if an old thread is bumped by a new member who is not aware and did not read the date etc...., he cant be blamed because he is not aware of this situation at first

Thats why I thought they should just be locked. That way, people can still view them, but not bump them. if they are like reeeal old, deletion would help clear thinsg up though. Like after 2 years of something.

 

[hufschmid]

I'm thinking about a kind of auto delate system based on a specific date?

You know like when the date of the thread would be like 3 years old, the system would automatically delate it?

Would make lots of sens actually and keep the data base clean etc....

Just an idea....

 

[lobee]

I say just leave it how it is. Is it really that hard to ignore a thread once you realize it's been bumped by a newb?

 

[MFB]

I say just leave it how it is. Is it really that hard to ignore a thread once you realize it's been bumped by a newb?

Half the time we don't realize its an old thread until we look at the dates and normally if it's something that a newb is bumping then its already a million pages and everything has been discussed

 

[lobee]

Half the time we don't realize its an old thread until we look at the dates and normally if it's something that a newb is bumping then its already a million pages and everything has been discussed

I know. But once you realize it's an old thread, and it's inevitable that someone will point out that fact in every bumped thread, just ignore it.

I don't think old threads should be locked or deleted at all. Sometimes you have questions that are relevant to the thread and the answers might not be attained by PM's. The answers to those questions can help that person and others when they're searching. Also, sometimes the thread starter might have an update to a thread and if it's locked or deleted they'd have to start a new thread.

Sometimes people just get their undies in a twist over nothing, but I'm guilty of that too at times.

 

[troyguitar]

If you don't realize it's an old thread, why expect the newb to realize?

I guess I don't really care since old threads are generally still new to me.

 

[heavy7-665]

i cant wait til this thread is over a year old so i can bump it


just kidding

 

[Daemoniac]

Well, they called us on it..

Dude! He changed the name of the thread too!

 

[DDDorian]

It does say in the rules (wherever the rules page actually is, I don't remember off-hand) that people should be using the search function and bunping old threads rather than making new ones, so I don't mind so much when ages-old threads get bumped.

On the other hand, there used to be a big orange warning that came up when someone went to post in an old thread reading "This thread is X months old" that randomly disappeared when Chris updated one day. I don't know if he chose to remove it or if it's a bug but it might be handy if we could get it back.

 

[NegaTiveXero]

i cant wait til this thread is over a year old so i can bump it


just kidding

Didn't read the whole thread, did you?

 

[Daemoniac]

It does say in the rules (wherever the rules page actually is, I don't remember off-hand) that people should be using the search function and bunping old threads rather than making new ones, so I don't mind so much when ages-old threads get bumped.

On the other hand, there used to be a big orange warning that came up when someone went to post in an old thread reading "This thread is X months old" that randomly disappeared when Chris updated one day. I don't know if he chose to remove it or if it's a bug but it might be handy if we could get it back.

That would be so f*cking handy!! We should see if Alex can put it back somehow, cos that would eliminate all the n00b bumpage (well, hopefully all the pointless ones anyway )