Posting in Old Threads/"Necro-Bumping"

[admin]

The impetus for this thread is from a private message I just received asking me what the rule is regarding the bumping of old threads.
Many forums have rules against bumping old threads.
As PipesMagazine.com is coming up on our 4th birthday, we still haven't posted such a rule - for two reasons: 1) There hasn't been much of a problem in this area, likely since 2) It is such commonly known Netiquette that it seemed to go without saying.
I started wondering if we need to have a rule for this, but like many things, it's not as simple as you think once you start working on it.
The reasons "Necro-Bumping" is discouraged is that it can potentially create outdated posts with information that is no longer relevant. It's also useless (and annoying) to bring up old news that has gone stale.
However, pipe smoking and pipe collecting have a unique hobbyist aspect, which by nature can generate evergreen content / discussions that never go stale. For example, all newbies to pipe smoking can benefit from different types of advice such as; how to pack a pipe, to smoke slow, tobacco recommendations, etc.
We have had some old irrelevant threads get bumped on rare occasions. After this happens, we usually close them, and sometimes delete them. Other times, we recognize that the discussion is evergreen in nature and can benefit others that have not been previously educated or informed on the topic.
So for now, we will see if we can rely on our individual members to use their own judgment as to what is outdated, irrelevant, stale information - and leave it alone - don't bump it.
However, if it is still good info / discussion that just hasn't come up in a while, it might be acceptable to bump an old thread.
Alternatively (and when in doubt), start a new thread and link back to the old one.
If you have something to add and judge that your information is related, but more up-to-date, start a new thread and link to the old one.

 

[scrapyardape]

Thanks for the clarification, Kevin. I promise to try and behave myself.

 

[jkenp]

I'd think locking an abused topic would be the right action. It stops silly, stupid bumps while maintaining the data integrity. Historic documentation is best left with warts and all.

 

[lincolnsbark]

I have always wondered what was the proper conduct is in this situation. This is the first active forum I have been a member of and check multiple times a day. That being said I am still within my first year of pipe smoking so I am drenched in the stink of being a noob. When I find something new to me but old to the forum I usually posted in the old forum post, thinking that people got annoyed when I started a new topic because inevitable someone would say 'this has been talked about here in this link" even if what I was asking I believed to be a knew issue.
I think Kevin's suggestion for my situation really is best:

Alternatively (and when in doubt), start a new thread and link back to the old one.

This way I can acknowledge that I have done the research before asking a question without necrobumping, which is an amazing term by the way.

 

[scrapyardape]

I am drenched in the stink of being a noob.

That phrase is so amazing that I'm stealing it for myself.
There are other forums that I frequent in which thread necromancy is a sin of the highest order and I did not want to invoke anyone's wrath. So here, I'll only do so if it is of the direst of emergencies.

 

[JimInks]

I don't have much problem with it. I have a semi-on going thread pertaining to my reviews of Sutliff's Private Stock Blends, and it was my thought that it was better to add reviews to the old thread rather than start a new one each month. That way, all the reviews will eventually be in one thread, rather than spread out. And those who missed the earlier reviews can check them out when I post the new ones.

 

[namuna]

Ahhh, the many facets of the word/term "Evergreen". Adeptly used here by Kevin to refer to subject matter that stays relevant over time and also used in rap music to refer to the status of ones money making abilities.

 

[weezell]

So for now, we will see if we can rely on our individual members to use their own judgment

SPOOKY thought :rofl:

 

[dragonslayer]

I've seen a few threads that are redundant but are green mainly from new users and both contain some other question/situation and our endless need to go off thread into something worth reading ::
Craig

 

[dragonslayer]

Haha Roth! Mr. 14,672 posts in 16 months :nana: Just messing with ya bother, but maybe the "jarring tobacco" is one that's been answered with thousands of posts. You do pass on great advice on every subject and really go the extra mile for new members. But as always we collectively wonder off thread and something new comes out.

I may be the odd man out here

I know we are the many, and most of us would rather just post (ramble) what comes to mind than search. The only one that sticks in my mind is Kashmir's post on "Why I smoke a pipe", the post as I've said before is still printed out and in my wallet. I've pulled it out over a dozen times *pervs :laughat: * for people to read, all amazed and leads to long conversations. In fact as of a few months ago I now carry two because people want to keep it.
This should have it's own sticky!!
From Kashmir:
"When I encounter the Antis I just whip put a copy of my handy pipe smoking manifesto, from my back pocket, and, with narry a word, thrust it into their hands.
Why I smoke a pipe.
I routinely use this missive as a broad sheet to answer the question of "Why I smoke a pipe". A question so often asked by many of my anti-tobacco friends. Friends, I might add, that give me a hard time whenever I light up my tobacco pipe. You see, I'm a reader, and my heroes are those I read about. And usually they involve men who smoked a pipe.
Run your eyes down the list below of names and see how many you recognize. Collectively, I would argue, these men actually made the 20th Century, both literally and figuratively. To a man, all avid pipe smokers, each and every one. Moreover, many lived well beyond the average lifespan of their day, many passing in their mid- to late-eighties.
Albert Einstein, Mark Twain, William Faulkner, John Steinbeck, Norman Rockwell, Orson Wells, JRR Tolkein, CS Lewis, Douglas MacArthur, Admiral Arleigh Burke, Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain, Bing Crosby, President Gerald Ford, Carl Sandburg, Harold Macmillan, Konrad Lorenz, Errol Flynn, Edgar Rice Burroughs, John D. MacDonald, Warner Baxter, Thomas Selfridge, Charles Nelson Reilly, Ossip Zadkine, , Max Frisch, , Paul Casals, Jack Lynch, Patrick Moore, Anthony Hulme, Ronald Colman, Alexander Kent, Jacques Brel, Lino Ventura, Alfred Wainwright, Rudolph Bultmann, Philippe Sollers, Jean Gabin, Leo Malet, G.E. Moore, Gilbert Ryle, Edmund Husserl, J.L. Austin, Lalo Schifrin, James Whitmore, Anthony Quayle, Ralph Richardson, Bernard Grebanier, Jean-Paul Sartre, Stanley Holloway, , Carl Jung, Paul Kruger, Curd Jurgens, Gerard Walschap, Trevor Howard, Tony Benn, Rod Hull, Trevor Baylis, Joss Ackland, Frank Muir, Manny Shinwell, Jack Hargreaves, Warren Mitchell, Rupert Davies, Russ Abbot, Van Gordon Sauter, Walter Cronkite, Robert Fulghum, Milorad Pavić, Glenn Ford, Erwin Shrodinger, Moustapha Akkad, Evelyn Waugh, Harold Wilson, Bertrand Russell, Alf Landon, Edgar Buchanan, Dean Jagger, Edward G. Robinson, Rudyard Kipling, Aaron Spelling, P.G. Wodehouse, Allen Dulles, Otto Klemperer, Henry Fonda, Lee Van Cleef, Jack Lemmon, Peter Cushing, Barry Fitzgerald, Hume Cronyn, Graham Chapman, Nigel Bruce, Bennet Cerf, Raymond Chandler, Alexander Graham Bell, Arthur Frank, Richard E. Byrd, Gregory Peck, Albert King, Clarence "Gatemouth" Brown, Edward Abbey, Juan Trippe, Frank Sinatra, General George S. Patton, Jacques Derrida, Hurbert Hoover, Sid James, Fred Trueman, Vincent Schiavelli, Eric Morecambe, Stephen Fry, Fred Thompson, Roscoe Dickinson, Guy N. Smith, Gunter Grass, Sean O'Casey, A.A. Milne, Sir Compton Mackenzie, Laurie Lee, W. Somerset Maugham, J.B. Priestly, Andre Dubus, Gordon Parks, F.A. Mitchell-Hedges, W.W. Denslow, William Conrad, William Gillette, Edwin Hubble, Rober Oppenheimer, Niels Bohr, Robert Young, Clark Gable, Fred MacMurray, Ralph Bellamy, Cary Grant, David Ogilvy, Sir Winston Churchill, Kind George VI, Arthur Miller, Ernest Hemingway, John Ford, Shelby Foote, Herschel Burke Gilbert, Thomas Johnston Taylor, Theodor Geisel (Dr. Seuss), Sir John Mills, Owen Barfield, Alan Christopher "Al" Deere, Elliot Harold Paul, Healey Willan, Harold Tucker Webster.
After perusing such a list, I ask: Can it be that the greatest minds of the 20th Century were all common miscreants, who did not fully fathom "what they were doing to themselves"? Are we, with all our advances of modern science, more intelligent than they were? How many men today can you count that can measure to the list above? I am hard pressed to find a handfull, if that.
We current tobacco pipe smokers actually represent the historical legacy of a community of world pipe smokers, a community which, in the not too distant past, encompassed some 35% of the adult males in the United States. Lest it not be forgotten, these anonymous pipe smokers were our grandfathers, and allowed for the freedoms many of us enjoy today. Although far fewer in number today, we nevertheless still hold the candle to the memory of these men and the deeds they accomplished, with, of course, a pipe in hand. "
Craig

 

[sfsteves]

rothnh said:

"... most of the time, I like seeing old threads brought back."

In the months that I've been a registered member here and during the time previous to that when I was viewing this site on pretty much a daily basis, I have learned a great deal from many of the old threads that have, for one reason or another, been bumped up ...
Either roth is NOT the odd man out or there are at least two of us ...

 

[brewshooter]

I'd like to respond to this thread, but I think I'll wait a couple of years.

 

[admin]

@Brewshooter

:laughat:

I'd like to respond to this thread, but I think I'll wait a couple of years.

LMFAO!!!

 

[petes03]

@brewshooter, that's hilarious!
Personally, it doesn't bother me. I kinda like seeing what guys had to say two or three years ago, as opinions often change with time.

 

[leacha]

I think when a thread is bumped (I've done it) that talks about a review of a tobacco , a brand of pipes or even a question such as "how do I...." they are relavent bumps and new information can be added. But maybe it should be left up to the moderator if it's relevant or not and should be closed.

 

[nscoyote]

I belong to a couple of other forums and the really isnt much rule when ti comes to Necro_Bumping but i can see the logic behind it if the thread is not of use to someone looking for pertinent info.
on a side note can we change the term for it? my sick and twisted thought pattern is bringing up mental pictures that are probably scarring and most certainly disturbing for a normal sane person when i hear/read the term Necro-Bumping.

 

[brian64]

on a side note can we change the term for it? my sick and twisted thought pattern is bringing up mental pictures that are probably scarring and most certainly disturbing for a normal sane person when i hear/read the term Necro-Bumping.

Sorta like the Monster Mash, but creepier.

 

[eaglerico]

I love it. You can really tell they all took this thread to heart. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
http://pipesmagazine.com/forums/topic/tim-west-is-the-man

http://pipesmagazine.com/forums/topic/my-latest-rad-davis-commission-a-zulu

 

[cortezattic]

Resurrecting an old thread shows that the person with a new question or comment has a sincere interest in resolving an issue.

It sure helps cut down on repetitious posting.
One of these days I might create a thread worthy of sticky status that is a topical index linking to relevant posts from the past.

Aside from the Mason jar vs. Ziploc Bag discussion, what topics do you think deserve need to be in an index?

 

[philip]

...what topics do you think deserve need to be in an index?

Kevin's Shoes