Zone1 Why aren't old threads archived?

[Natural Citizen]

Oh horse shit, do you really need to remind yourself of your past positions? Do they change with the wind or some shit? If so then that's why nobody will remember your name.

Me, I find myself on pretty solid ground the majority of the time and don't need to harken back to see if my position was the same a year ago.

I simply don't care if it has changed and if by the rare chance it has changed then I'm fine with it and keep moving forward.

I mean what, do you expect folks to prostrate themselves before the board and say "oh dear, my position has changed, please forgive me".....Not fuckin' hardly.

And as far as what peeps here have to say about anything I always remind myself that they are, in the end, just nameless entities on a message board with their own opinion that I may or may not share.

I've yet to see one worth the effort to dig up a old-ass thread to say "I told you so".....It's just juvenile.

It's not about Individual views pertaining to goings-on.

It's about the goings-on themselves. And a proper, constant proper record (and therefore awareness) of them. Seeing the forest through the trees.

You're generally a pretty good poster, but in this case you're being very one-dimensional.

 

[1srelluc]

It's not about Individual views pertaining to goings-on.

It's about the goings-on themselves. And a proper, constant proper record of them.

You're a pretty good poster, but in this case you're being very one-dimensional.

Meh, if I want to find out about something of import that happened in the fairly recent past I'll use my google-fu and find out about it.

Just the other day when I read here about Tater's bunch bringing back the "ministry of truth" I looked for the first rendition that failed and found it easily on the net.....I then found that it was to be headed-up by someone cut from the same leftist cloth as the first one.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Meh, if I want to find out about something of import that happened in the fairly recent past I'll use my google-fu and find out about it.

Just the other day when I read here about Tater's bunch bringing back the "ministry of truth" I looked for the first rendition that failed and found it easily on the net.....I then found that it was to be headed-up by someone cut from the same leftist cloth as the first one.

Yeah, I saw that report and noticed the same thing.

So, yeah, you and I may very well do that. And others who have interest in knowing such things.

But it's often left out of the mainstream until it's ready to be rollled out.

So, then, that's why it's important to be able to bump a thread about the first time they tried that stuff to say hey, look...they're still at it.

That's really all I'm saying.

Why would anyone with moral intent want to change the structure to obstruct the means to do that?

One of the biggest problems on this board, and on many others, is everything gets so compartmentalized and fragmented with so many new threads pertaining to a single topical issue that the timeline and relevant course of events pertaining to the issue are completely lost and ultimately removed from dialogue.

 

[Stryder50]

There are these concepts of choice and personal responsibility so if you don't like a thread being bumped, don't bother to look at it.

There are topics that have useful information which shouldn't need to be repeated every 6 months or year when it is still the same material.
Why burn-up server space with an archive that may have to be reborn later as a new (regurgitated thread/topic) thread and one with spotty continuity or missing context?

 

[elchorizo]

Good suggestion, but whoever owns this place does not give a fuck and doesn't even read the threads here.

The OP's suggestion is actually a good one. I'm going to work on a warning indicator for old threads. However, locking all threads after a certain date would not be ideal. I can think of many situations where an old thread would need to be revived... so a sledgehammer approach would be unwise.

I'll add something like this here in a few... thank you for the good suggestion 1srelluc

Edit: Any thread that hasn't had a reply for 120 days will show a warning and require a user to check a box acknowledging the thread is old before they will be able to click the reply button.

 

[1srelluc]

Yeah, I saw that report and noticed the same thing.

So, yeah, you and I may very well do that. And others who have interest in knowing such things.

But it's often left out of the mainstream until it's ready to be rollled out.

So, then, that's why it's important to be able to bump a thread about the first time they tried that stuff to say hey, look...they're still at it.

That's really all I'm saying.

Why would anyone with moral intent want to change the structure to obstruct the means to do that?

One of the biggest problems on this board, and on many others, is everything gets so compartmentalized and fragmented with so many new threads pertaining to a single topical issue that the timeline and relevant course of events pertaining to the issue are completely lost and ultimately removed from dialogue.

Actually the "ministry of truth" is on it's third resurrection.....When they got shed of the singing leftist woman they button-holed the former head of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and some leftist Ivy Leaguer woman whose name escapes me to run it but it just sort of disappeared.....Leftist ideas never die, they always pop back up.

 

[the other mike]

I see people digging up threads a year old or better all the time to make some obscure "I told you so" remark.

Why aren't older threads archived when they reach a certain age?

While older threads should be available for review folks should not be able to post in them but could link them for reference in a new thread they create.

It would seem to me anyone that wants to comment in a old thread should start a new, more relevant thread that speaks to whatever the subject is in today's time.

That and the old-ass threads get bumped to the top of the "What's new" page, knocking down more timely posts.

I think six months to a year should be any thread's limit before it's archived.

Only some type of AI program could manage it, first of all. And why ?

I love having access to old threads, especially my own , and restricting access would be censorship basically.

 

[1srelluc]

Only some type of AI program could manage it, first of all. And why ?

I love having access to old threads, especially my own , and restricting access would be censorship basically.

You would still have access for reference but not be able to post in it or as the administrator is thinking you will be alerted to the age of the post before hand.

 

[the other mike]

You would still have access for reference but not be able to post in it or as the administrator is thinking you will be alerted to the age of the post before hand.

If it was a common problem I could see your point of not cluttering the boards with old threads .

 

[elchorizo]

My solution is more elegant. Try finding a post without a reply for 120 days and try to reply, You'll see what I mean.

 

[Natural Citizen]

My solution is more elegant. Try finding a post without a reply for 120 days and try to reply, You'll see what I mean.

Yeah, that'll work.

Looks like you can still reply to older relevant content...

 

[Missourian]

The OP's suggestion is actually a good one. I'm going to work on a warning indicator for old threads. However, locking all threads after a certain date would not be ideal. I can think of many situations where an old thread would need to be revived... so a sledgehammer approach would be unwise.

I'll add something like this here in a few... thank you for the good suggestion 1srelluc

Edit: Any thread that hasn't had a reply for 120 days will show a warning and require a user to check a box acknowledging the thread is old before they will be able to click the reply button.

Well done

Thanks

 

[Cellblock2429]

I see people digging up threads a year old or better all the time to make some obscure "I told you so" remark.

Why aren't older threads archived when they reach a certain age?

While older threads should be available for review folks should not be able to post in them but could link them for reference in a new thread they create.

It would seem to me anyone that wants to comment in a old thread should start a new, more relevant thread that speaks to whatever the subject is in today's time.

That and the old-ass threads get bumped to the top of the "What's new" page, knocking down more timely posts.

I think six months to a year should be any thread's limit before it's archived.

/——/ I agree. Your 5 day old post should be archived.

 

[1srelluc]

Oh, OK I see it now.....

Damn man, you have so much unorganized crap in your sig line I had a hard time finding your little post......Police that shit up or untidy sig lines will be next on the block.

 

[Missourian]

You would still have access for reference but not be able to post in it or as the administrator is thinking you will be alerted to the age of the post before hand.

The problem there is I have threads I've been posting in for years...

I'm sure other do too.

Smokin' supper...mmm....

What a great thread! Glad I'm not vegan. ;)

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[1srelluc]

The problem there is I have threads I've been posting in for years...

I'm sure other do too.

Smokin' supper...mmm....

What a great thread! Glad I'm not vegan. ;)

www.usmessageboard.com

Time to move on and quit living in the past.

 

[Missourian]

Time to move on and quit living in the past.

The bigger problem is I haven't made anything new and different in three years.

Pulled pork, Brisket, Ribs...so good I never get around to anything else.

 

[1srelluc]

The bigger problem is I haven't made anything new and different in three years.

Pulled pork, Brisket, Ribs...so good I never get around to anything else.

I can't disagree there......Well as long as you are not talking beef ribs.