Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Qa303asmGuru

A little respect maybe?

This topic is 5552 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
quote:
Original post by cowsarenotevil
If you link back to an old thread, it''s only a matter of time before someone else will necro it.
Not if it''s automatically closed after lying dormant for a set time.

But... really... what''s the point? If thread ''x'' becomes old and say, I end up finding it, reading it, and having something rather good to contribute, then proper forum etiquette here would be to create a new ''y'' thread and have a link to ''x'' in it. Then to continue the conversation in the ''y'' thread.

...Which, to me, makes hardly any sense. Why not save a thread and just keep posting right off the bat? Bandwidth and space-wise, in fact, you could even say the new-thread-link-to-old method is more of a waste because you end up viewing two threads (the new one and the old one, for the sake of getting back into the discussion) and creating an extra thread which contains a link to the old thread. Which already exists to begin with...

Anyhow, my two cents...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
quote:
Original post by RuneLancer
But... really... what''s the point? If thread ''x'' becomes old and say, I end up finding it, reading it, and having something rather good to contribute, then proper forum etiquette here would be to create a new ''y'' thread and have a link to ''x'' in it. Then to continue the conversation in the ''y'' thread.

...Which, to me, makes hardly any sense. Why not save a thread and just keep posting right off the bat? Bandwidth and space-wise, in fact, you could even say the new-thread-link-to-old method is more of a waste because you end up viewing two threads (the new one and the old one, for the sake of getting back into the discussion) and creating an extra thread which contains a link to the old thread. Which already exists to begin with...

Anyhow, my two cents...


Personally I think linking to the old thread & sumarising the key (pertainant) points beats having to find them yourself in amongst the 10 pages of "C# or OpenGL is better/worse/should be damned to hell/ideal/other (please fill in the gap) than C++/Visual Basic/DirectX/ATI/other random critter" which most threads seem to decend into sooner or later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I advocate this "necroing" as you call it, because it makes for good reading. It makes sense to link backwards and blah blah blah but what''s the point? If you''re perusing the original thread ''z'' and you want to contribute then you create a new thread ''x'' in which you link backwards to it. So far so good. But your buddy Joe, Sam and Billy all want to put their thoughts into it too. Pop-pop-pop!! We now have 4 more threads all pointing back at the original one. So they figure out this has happened and they all link to each other creating a nice, BIG mess.

So let''s say that less-than-ideal situation doesn''t occur. I make an old post, and someone wants to contribute. They link backwards and whatnot, and so that thread gets some attention and eventually drifts into the annals of gamedev and is never to be seen again. But that original post was linked to on someone''s website! It is found, and once again resurrected with another linked post. Circles continue, and this new linked post redundantly states the same as the first one but nobody knows it because it''s in no sort of logical order whatsoever.

In my experience, "necroing" is never a bad thing, because it lets ideas flow (chrono)logically. Perhaps a better board design would solve this problem (I have one in mind) but I doubt this will attract much attention in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about this? Keep the thread in the same location ("necroed"), but archive (or something similar) all but the last 5-10 pages. So, by clicking the thread topic, you are taken to the most recent pages first; if you want to view the older ones, you can click an option that will display all of them. And I do rather like the idea of maybe putting in visual dividers when large gaps of time have gone by.... Maybe something as simple as the blue headers, but in a different color and with some descriptive text notifying you of the time gap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Karl G
If you''re perusing the original thread ''z'' and you want to contribute then you create a new thread ''x'' in which you link backwards to it. So far so good. But your buddy Joe, Sam and Billy all want to put their thoughts into it too. Pop-pop-pop!! We now have 4 more threads all pointing back at the original one. So they figure out this has happened and they all link to each other creating a nice, BIG mess.



You just described the classic race condition in multithreaded
programming literature. Two threads (members) are both trying
to access a shared resource (link to old post).

quote:

So let''s say that less-than-ideal situation doesn''t occur.


What is the probability that two or more people are viewing
a 4-year-old thread, and *ALL* wanting to create a new topic
and linking back? 1e-100%, if even that.

Your scenario looks good on paper/in theory, but very unlikely
to be true in real life practice.

I cannot understand why some people are so passionate about
necro''ing threads. If the staff and moderators say "don''t do
it", then, um, don''t do it. End of story.



Kami no Itte ga ore ni zettai naru!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by RuneLancer
...Which, to me, makes hardly any sense. Why not save a thread and just keep posting right off the bat? Bandwidth and space-wise, in fact, you could even say the new-thread-link-to-old method is more of a waste because you end up viewing two threads (the new one and the old one, for the sake of getting back into the discussion) and creating an extra thread which contains a link to the old thread. Which already exists to begin with...


The two biggest problems:


  • Many of the posters who participated in the original discussion may have left. If you''re posting a question, difference of opinion, or request for clarification, aimed at a specific poster within the thread, then you''re unlikely to get a response.
  • The information contained within the thread may be out of date. For example, necroing a thread which talks about "why is D3D so slow?" is probably pointless if the thread was posted when DirectX was at version 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting that this thread is generating more popularity than the thread that this topic was originally about...

About the two reasons superpig gave:

1. True, some of the posters may have left and would be unlikely to respond. But in a topic such as mine, it actually encouraged new faces with new personalities to post, and there weren''t very many questions asked of previous posters.

2. I also agree, old topics, interesting or not, can be irrelevant if dated like the example you gave. Again, my topic was not of this type, it was an open ended discussion/comparison. Something that I figured newcomers could read and relate too and get an idea of the personalities of some of the more ''obsessed'' programmers/gamers in this community.

I can understand the thread being closed if I had bumped it, nobody responded, and I just kept bumping it to be ''heard''. But I bumped it once and people were contributing left and right.

Also, I''m aware that ''respect'' goes both ways, and in this discussion of thread politics I''ve tried very hard to supress any hard ''emotions'' (or lack thereof in this case) to be as respectful to administrators and moderators as I can, while still trying to get my point across.

-Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by DerAnged
in about 3 months this thread will be necroed
...and subsequently closed, with the necroing party being NB''d or banned if already NB''d. Or are you trying to tell us what you intend to do? Should I skip the three-month interval and just ban you now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
quote:
Original post by DerAnged
in about 3 months this thread will be necroed
...and subsequently closed, with the necroing party being NB'd or banned if already NB'd. Or are you trying to tell us what you intend to do? Should I skip the three-month interval and just ban you now?


No, i was just saying, threads like these tend to be necroed. I hate necroes i think they are pointless, and why are you attacking me what did i do to you?



Sharp Basic - Coming summer 2004!
Sign Up For Sharp Basic Beta Testing!!!

[edited by - deranged on May 5, 2004 6:37:42 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!