Which is the better choice?

[faldrok]

Well, if this has been discussed before in the past (I am sure it has), I didn\'t find it and it would bring up the decision that I am asking about.

To start new threads (about the same subject) or to revive old threads? Which is the better choice? (Yes, I agree if they have a question that has been answered several times, they should search and leave it alone, but what if they want to discuss it? That is the real issue here.)

Well, everyone hates it when people don\'t \"search\" for a topic discussed many times in the past, but we also hate it when people bring up really old and dead threads. So, which is the better choice? So, what if someone wants to talk about something previously discussed, what should they do? Start a new thread and get a bunch of \"Search\" button images, or bring up a past topic about it? Both are hated, but one has to be used, most of the time.

Exception: Yes, there is an exception. It is when the date of the last post For example, if a Hamburger was a topic discussed (and the last post was November 5th), and someone wanted to talk about it (the date is November 17th), then they should revive the thread as it is only 12 days old. That would be the choice there, obviously.

So, what do you guys think is the better choice? Revive an old, used thread, or start a new thread? (By old, I mean over 4-5 months.)

I think a new thread should be used if the previous topic is over a year old, but it is debatable at around the 6 month mark.

Which is the better choice?

[Efflixi Aduro]

Well it also depends on how many posts that topic had in it.  For example, if somone trys to reveive a thread 2 months old with only 4 posts. But, with the thread \"the faces behind the players\" it would be better to reveive it.  So I guess what I\'m saying is use search first and use your common sense on wether or not to make a new thread.

[Waylander]

New thread with links to old posts and mentions of what are within them...problem solved; Waylander is god

[Moogie]

This is what I allow happen with previously-discussed topics. Otherwise old revived topics/new clone topics are closed:

A person can either start a new thread, stating that he has read the old topics, and provide links to them. Then what he adds to the discussion must be WORTH it, i.e. it should not say something pointless like \"I agree with this\", rather \"I agree with this because ... and in addition I have another idea nobody thought of ...\"

Or a person can revive an old topic (no limit about how old it is, I don\'t think that matters), adding something worthwhile to the discussion, something that was not previously thought of or discussed, and something that is relevant and important. Again, \"I agree\" is grounds for a closed topic and a warning, because this is technically two counts of spam (one for necro\'ing, the other for writing a post less than 3 words/a sentence long).

[faldrok]

Aaah, that is sorta what I was thinking, but maybe this will help people that didn\'t really know make a better choice, but who am I kidding? The people that make the annoying topics usually won\'t read anything before posting anyways, so... Thanks for the information, nontheless.

[JellyWerker]

Umm..., is this kinda in reference to me? I didn\'t know it was bad ettiquette. My opinion would be start a new thread if the original is more than 2 months old.

[faldrok]

No, this was not in total reference to you because you are not the only one that has done this. It has always been a question in my mind, but when you did it, and people didn\'t like you doing this, I decided to go ahead and ask, or just confirm that I have about the same sense about this, so if I needed to do this, I would know what to do. Also, other people that aren\'t 100% sure could come here, and choose the better choice.