Posting on 'dated' threads

[Tony Parsons]

Using the word 'dated' in two senses, I have noticed that occasionally posts are being made to threads in NW which are (usually) started weekly, yet posts are made some time after the commencement date. Then again, posts are being made to threads that commenced some ten, fifteen or twenty years ago. While it is fascinating to see these 'Antient' threads resurrected (although sadly some of the images may no longer be available), would it be possible, in one of the upcoming 'enhancements', for a 'warning' to be displayed to the poster informing her / him of the fact that the thread is not current ?

I realise this is by no means a major issue - do others agree, or am I being perilously pedantic ?

 

[Sandy Vongries]

There was a previous discussion on this.  The new platform has a function which lets a moderator quickly and easily split the new post off the old thread and edit the title and the post so it can stand alone.  I ask what folks wanted, and some responded that they wanted the old info.  I usually look that kind of post over because they are occasionally spammers trying to be tricky.  I am willing to go along with whatever makes sense.  

[Dustin McAmera]

In threads that repeat weekly like Wide-angle Wednesday, whoever starts the thread for this week could post a message at the bottom of last week's: 'This week's thread is closed: don't post any more here.'  and a link to the new week. It wouldn't have the force of moderator action, but someone would have to be careless to not see it.

Some No Words themes come round again and again; 'Arches' has been done a few times; whereas over in Portrait and Fashion, 'Post your non-studio headshots' has been going for three and a half years in the same thread. I don't think that matters.

[samstevens]

I like as little control exerted as possible. If someone resurrects a really old thread, the results are sometimes fascinating. Why not allow a little serendipity its say now and then? Yes, I’ve been caught off guard more than once by a thread resurrected that, at first, I assumed was new. I like being caught off guard now and then, so it amused me and didn’t bother me. 

Edited November 18, 2022 by samstevens

[rws]

Perhaps it would be useful, if reviving an old thread, to start off the new post with "Continuing a thread from 1999..."  This would at least be good manners.

[samstevens]

1 hour ago, rws1664886018 said:

Perhaps it would be useful, if reviving an old thread, to start off the new post with "Continuing a thread from 1999..."  This would at least be good manners.

Two things: 1) I think some people reviving old threads don’t realize they’re doing so. 2) Certainly cool to post the kind of notice you refer to, if the poster wants to. But why wouldn’t it also be good manners to intentionally revive an old thread without notice as a means of surprise, playfulness, homage, or continuity over a long period of time? As long as no one’s flouting a rule of the site or guideline of a forum, why not let people do things all sorts of different ways and be adaptable? Just how awful is it to come across a revived No Words thread? And is it better or worse than coming across a salad fork placed incorrectly on a Thanksgiving table place setting?

Edited November 18, 2022 by samstevens

[rws]

Good points, Sam.  I wouldn't call he misplacement of a salad fork a matter of manners, however.  To me that seems more like superficial etiquette.  By manners I mean behavior that takes into account the comfort or feelings of others.  I don't think that manners are ever absolute or always necessary, but it would be nice to prevent users from being unnecessarily confused.  On the other hand, I have no good argument against the values of surprise, playfulness, homage, or continuity.   And when I have been momentarily confused by starting to read a "dated" thread without knowing its age, I must admit that I have never thought "well, that was rude!"  So I cede to your better judgment on the issue.

[samstevens]

25 minutes ago, rws1664886018 said:

I cede to your better judgment on the issue

Not necessarily better. Just different. Yes on the difference between etiquette and manners. And I appreciate your considering my points. 

[Sandy Vongries]

29 minutes ago, rws1664886018 said:

Good points, Sam.  I wouldn't call he misplacement of a salad fork a matter of manners, however.  To me that seems more like superficial etiquette.  By manners I mean behavior that takes into account the comfort or feelings of others.  I don't think that manners are ever absolute or always necessary, but it would be nice to prevent users from being unnecessarily confused.  On the other hand, I have no good argument against the values of surprise, playfulness, homage, or continuity.   And when I have been momentarily confused by starting to read a "dated" thread without knowing its age, I must admit that I have never thought "well, that was rude!"  So I cede to your better judgment on the issue.

Interesting is that many expect a response from folks who haven't been seen in years, or even decades.  As to the salad fork, per my dear deceased Mom, you are off the guest list. 

[Niels - NHSN]

As I wrote in another tread where this subject surfaced; I think the original post in most cases is a proxy for a general question that many others may have. 

If I search Google on the subject of say; information on the Durst M600 enlarger.

A photo.net thread from 2008 may show up in the top 10 of the search result. I follow the link and find useful information.

In the process I have found more information elsewhere on the subject of the M600 which is missing from the photo.net thread, which I add to the thread in hope someone like me can find useful in a perhaps distant future.

This causes the thread to "come to life" and a few people may add additional comments, no harm in that, on the contrary, and I certainly do not see the benefit of making a new thread and fragment the knowledge further.

It doesn't really matter if the original poster wrote something like "I need to make a print by sunday" or "I have been offered this enlarger but have to answer by tomorrow". The reason for the question is irrelevant, we are writing for the Internet/comunity, not the original poster.

[SCL]

It seems strange when somebody posts an answer to the poster of a thread from years ago, thinking perhaps they will read it. OTOH, updating info from an old thread makes perfect sense to me.

[Tony Parsons]

Thanks to all for their thoughts on this matter - I agree it is not vitally important, and I hope we have not ended up in a 'Pistols at Dawn' situation. I agree with the idea that if a thread is resurrected, an indication of this is added by the Re-animator (HPL), and the suggestion that 'In threads that repeat weekly like Wide-angle Wednesday, whoever starts the thread for this week could post a message at the bottom of last week's: 'This week's thread is closed: please don't post any more here.'  and a link to the new week. It wouldn't have the force of moderator action, but someone would have to be careless to not see it. (@Dustin McCamera)' - italicised addition to quote my suggestion. 

And, of course, it is gratifying that people are studying the site with such avidity that interest is shewn in earlier threads and postings. I would not be in favour of closing or locking old threads, and as @samstevens says, 'I’ve been caught off guard more than once by a thread resurrected that, at first, I assumed was new. I like being caught off guard now and then, so it amused me and didn’t bother me.' 

 

[glen_h]

On 11/19/2022 at 7:42 AM, SCL said:

It seems strange when somebody posts an answer to the poster of a thread from years ago, thinking perhaps they will read it. OTOH, updating info from an old thread makes perfect sense to me.

I usually figure that posts are for all of us, even if one seems to be answering a question by one person.

So replying to an old thread, I assume it is for new readers, not the original poster.

[glen_h]

On 11/18/2022 at 10:15 AM, tony_parsons1 said:

Using the word 'dated' in two senses, I have noticed that occasionally posts are being made to threads in NW which are (usually) started weekly, yet posts are made some time after the commencement date.

(snip)

 

I mostly try to get the most recent one, but don't worry so much if I miss by a week.

Are we supposed to only use shots taken on that day?

Also, since "No words" only allows us to post once per thread, using previous week threads allows us to post more.

And besides, the picture might have been taken that week, but I didn't post fast enough.

 

Also, I have thought about a "Telephoto Tuesday" opposite to "Wide angle Wednesday".

 

 

 

 

[Tony Parsons]

Thanks for your thoughts, Glen - I agree that sometimes a shot relevant to an earlier NW thread may be taken (or discovered !) at a later date, there is no problem (or should I use the current buzz-word 'issue' ?) with adding it to the appropriate thread. It's just that sometimes, when an earlier thread has been resurrected (or re-animated), there are further additions to it, possibly be members who do not realise the accepted protocol, which @samstevens highlighted earlier.  As for restricting posts to images taken during the week in question, I would not be in favour of this, as it seems far too restrictive, and I am totally in favour of freedom of choice. Probably just me being 'picky' - one of the results of having bean a porof reader (sic !). 

I like the idea of Telephoto Tuesday - presumably any lens greater than 50/55mm on FF, or 35/40mm on APSC ? We must have a committee meeting and decide on the exact definition of 'Telephoto' before this idea goes live 😄😄

[samstevens]

7 hours ago, glen_h said:

Are we supposed to only use shots taken on that day?

I think as long as you adhere to the minimal PN guidelines (the No Words guidelines appear in a sticky thread at the top of the thread list), you may do as you like. And the great thing about No Words is that, if someone doesn’t like what you do, they can’t say so … no words! 😶 

7 hours ago, glen_h said:

Also, I have thought about a "Telephoto Tuesday" opposite to "Wide angle Wednesday".

I think as long as the thread title makes use of alliteration, it ought to be a go … 😊

[Gerald Cafferty]

10 hours ago, glen_h said:

 

 

Also, I have thought about a "Telephoto Tuesday" opposite to "Wide angle Wednesday".

 

 

 

 

If you think it's a good idea there's no reason you can't start one. It would fill a gap nothing much much happens on Tuesday🙂

[glen_h]

On 11/18/2022 at 1:05 PM, rws1664886018 said:

Perhaps it would be useful, if reviving an old thread, to start off the new post with "Continuing a thread from 1999..."  This would at least be good manners.

 

At least a few times, I have found an old thread from a Google search.

Usually that means I have a similar question.  Reviving the old thread doesn't

seem worse than starting a new one with the same subject.  No need to

mention that someone else had the question before.

 

For 'No words", I don't think mentioning it helps, and besides, it is no words.

If it would help the discussion, mentioning it probably makes sense.

[AlanKlein]

On 11/18/2022 at 1:15 PM, tony_parsons1 said:

Using the word 'dated' in two senses, I have noticed that occasionally posts are being made to threads in NW which are (usually) started weekly, yet posts are made some time after the commencement date. Then again, posts are being made to threads that commenced some ten, fifteen or twenty years ago. While it is fascinating to see these 'Antient' threads resurrected (although sadly some of the images may no longer be available), would it be possible, in one of the upcoming 'enhancements', for a 'warning' to be displayed to the poster informing her / him of the fact that the thread is not current ?

I realise this is by no means a major issue - do others agree, or am I being perilously pedantic ?

 

IF someone posted to it, than they made it current.

[Tony Parsons]

5 hours ago, AlanKlein said:

IF someone posted to it, than they made it current.

I take your point, but to me it seems logical that, if a weekly thread (such as Monochrome Monday) has been started for a particular week, further posts should be made to that week's thread, not one from previous weeks. As I say, no big deal, just my thoughts on the matter.

[samstevens]

5 hours ago, tony_parsons1 said:

I take your point, but to me it seems logical that, if a weekly thread (such as Monochrome Monday) has been started for a particular week, further posts should be made to that week's thread, not one from previous weeks. As I say, no big deal, just my thoughts on the matter.

Imagine, though, the mesmerizing matter of miserable Marjorie, who’s now updating dozens of dated weekly threads with multiple digital doozies after suffering the markedly manifold misfortune of missing a myriad of Monochrome Mondays while under the melancholic malaise of measles, mumps, or monkey pox. I mean, what’s a girl to do?

[Dustin McAmera]

When life gives you lemons, Marjorie...

She should start her own threads: Sickbed Saturday, Self-isolation Sunday, Weakly weekly, ... and others I deleted for reasons of good taste.🤢

[Dustin McAmera]

'Another view of my ceiling, now with a spider.'

[Tony Parsons]

2 hours ago, Dustin McAmera said:

When life gives you lemons, Marjorie...

<snip>

Surgery can turn them into melons (if that is what you want !)