No-necro/bump rule amendement request

[dTTb]

Could that rule be amended so useful-yet-old-or-lost posts are allowed to be necro'd/bumped?
For instance, a thread that hasn't had a post in it for over a month, or a thread that got relegated to page 8 or something; some way to make sure it's not always the same threads on the front page, but neither only new (and possibly duplicate) threads.

I feel that would be for the better of the whole community, including the moderation team(s):
For there would be less duplicate threads!

and threads that didn't get pinned yet contain immensely useful information that is otherwise hard to find unless you know it exists.


*edit: to be quite frank, I think proper necroing should be encouraged, not forbidden in all cases.

[dTTb]

It's not about general help, for instance, sometimes there's a thread containing known issues, and known fixes, that doesn't get stickied.
And the search button leads to a very flawed search system, which would be helped by such imho.

How would you skim rules without breaking them?
If say, the threshold is 40 days, bumps after 40 days since last activity are valid, no questions asked; bumps after 30 days will get deleted, no questions asked.
I'm not sure I got what you meant with that.. Nor with the part about the issues caused by the legal system.
I'd say precise rules prevent arguments, unless you're talking arguments discussions stating the rule is unjust, as I'm basically doing over the current one; which is vague seeing how it's 'up to mod discretion'.

Jade: old threads, and I do mean those containing valuable information, I'd love to see them bumped to the front from time to time instead of having a page filled with a few stickies and a few '@#$ gaem don't work' posts...
However you do point towards a very real concern that only old threads would overtake the first page..
The point of bumping an old thread is creating new visibility for it. Just like necroing a thread (which could also entail adding new information).



However:
I fear we've drifted off of the main point I'm arguing for, which is reaching a consensus over the validity of the practice of necroing vs creating new threads; and having such ammended into the rules.

[Spawn of Totoro]

And they will not be changing the rule.

If we, for example, apply specific rules to spam:
Spam is defined as a repeated post for 3 or more times and/or consisting of the same post.

We now get people posting the same post 2 times, then modifying it so that it isn't the same post, even if it is the same subject.

Just like they do in courts with the legal system.

The search works fine if you know what you are looking for. Google also provides an easy way to find solutions without necroing threads.

If say, the threshold is 40 days, bumps after 40 days since last activity are valid, no questions asked; bumps after 30 days will get deleted, no questions asked.

Necro all threads as soon as they are 40 days old, displacing threads on new issues. If banned, then the argument is that they are with in the rules, so the ban is unjustified.

That is why it won't work. Give specifics and people will work around them.

dTTb님이 먼저 게시:

However:
I fear we've drifted off of the main point I'm arguing for, which is reaching a consensus over the validity of the practice of necroing vs creating new threads; and having such ammended into the rules.

No, this is still the same subject. We are discussing why and how adding specifics won't work out.

I agree there are valid reasons. When one is necro'd for a valid reason and with a legitimate statement, then we tend to leave it alone. I have yet to see one necro'd in such a way though.

I disagree with adding specific rules for it. As said by several people already, it would just cause issues, not solve them.

[dTTb]

"The search works fine if you know what you are looking for"
I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree on that, for in my experience that is absolutely not the case, not at all.
IMHO: The search is at best very flawed..

For instance:
*Often when searching for two words, random results containing either instead of both will pop up higher than some containing both (verified that the other word doesn't even exist in the entire thread). The others containing either will also be at the end of the other results regardless.
*There is no way to specify that two words should be contained in the same post.
*There is no way to specify that two words should be contained in the entire thread instead of on a single page, or the reverse.
*There is no way to exclude words from being present in a result.
*There is no way to specify an 'OR' condition (so f.i. two synonyms).
*There is no way to search all sources at the same time (guides, forums, screenshots).
*There is no way to search inside a specific thread (let alone a few, or a few specific forums).

These are just a few things off of the top of my head that seriously hinder a good search, to the best of my knowlege at this point.

Also, 'just google it' is imho not a workable solution when Steam(.exe) presents us these forums for use; quite probably (at least) half of it's users utilize them with their browsers closed, and prefer it that way.



Now back to necroing:
As stated earlier, I wish for not only explicit allowance of valid ones, but actual encouragement of such: less (rehashed) threads, more info per thread.

Am I reading this correctly, you have yet to see a valid necro around here?

Spawn of Totoro님이 먼저 게시:

I agree there are valid reasons. When one is necro'd for a valid reason and with a legitimate statement, then we tend to leave it alone. I have yet to see one necro'd in such a way though.

Because I myself, and others as well, have dug up old threads containing an issue I encountered, some going even back a year iirc.
This is IMHO quite valuable, especially because IF/WHEN a solution arises, everyone that has partaken in that thread will be notified of such; as long as such necros are common practice!