I beg to differ.Yes, but if you add a new question to an old thread, you will be waiting for an answer in perpetuity.
@siares is right. Far too often, if you do everything right (search for an existing thread on the topic, read through it carefully, ask a question because the thread didn't address all your questions), you simply don't get an answer, whereas if you start a new thread you do. There's an irrational resistance to posting in a thread if the next-to-last post is old, where the same, identical thread would get answers if that same next-to-last post were recent.I beg to differ.
This has not been my experience. I read the whole thread, ask a question, when the thread vanishes from the first page, report, wait for it to disappear again...If you add a reasonable new question to an old thread (not a random thread, but the right one), proving you did take the time to read the whole discussion first, people will help you.
The problem @siares and I are describing is a real problem. I (and I assume @siares) have experienced it many, many times. This is not about duplicating threads, not reading threads carefully, not searching first, or being impatient.We already have thousands of duplicated threads that are very similar.
To keep asking the same questions all over again just because we can't wait a couple of hours doesn't help.
Fortunately, it doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen a lot of the time (far too often, as I said).I find it very odd to say that these revived threads don't get replies.
What I'm describing (a response rate that is much lower than it should be, not a response rate of zero) is just as true there as it is elsewhere. I've experienced it regularly in a variety of forums, including Spanish.In Sp/Eng, this is just not true.
Wait a minute, this is not what I've been talking about. I'm talking about reviving a very old thread because you haven't found an answer to your question in any existing threads and your question relates to the topic of the existing thread.as soon as there is two answers, that's it.
That I think is more reasonable than a "solved" label (which I expressed opposition to in the thread that spawned this one).there is a cult-like opposition to an 'unsolved' demarcation for a thread which would indicate someone is waiting for an answer.
What did I do wrong here?
I understood you. But using search function, it is not easy to find those threads.Wait a minute, this is not what I've been talking about. I'm talking about reviving a very old thread because you haven't found an answer to your question in any existing threads and your question related to the topic of the existing thread.
I don't know about that. In my experience active threads generally get a lot of attention, and most questions and follow-up questions do get addressed. The biggest problem in my experience is when a more or less substantial amount of time passes, and then you post a follow-up. For many threads, that elapsed time is unfortunately a death sentence.A thread is not answered often if there are several replies, even regardless of its posting date. It is presumed solved.
I think it doesn't make a huge difference whether it is a day or a few years. A few hours old thread with two replies has much less chance to be opened by new readers as compared to a thread with a red zero.when a more or less substantial amount of time passes
Sorry, the opposition might have been to that. But after vigorous defence against 'solved', people lose interest . CS threads go cold too.That I think is more reasonable than a "solved" label
In my experience, it does make a huge difference.I think it doesn't make a huge difference whether it is a day or a few years.
Less of a chance - undoubtedly.A few hours old thread with two replies has much less chance to be opened by new readers as compared to a thread with a red zero.
Do you find that effective? Do you get a decent response rate?I make a point of prefacing my post with a few words in [bold red type]
Amen.Out of the 50 threads currently on the first page of the Spanish/English Vocabulary forum, no less than 13 are more than five years old and have been revived either because someone has a similar question or because more clarification is being requested. We don't want dozens of threads asking about the same phrase.
Again, in my personal, long experience on WR, the decisive factor that determines whether a question usually gets answers or not isn't that fact that is tagged on a previous thread instead of being posted in its own thread. Usually, well framed, interesting questions are more likely to get replies than silly, unclear, done to death queries, regardless of whether they are tagged on an old thread or posted in a new thread.Again, that’s not the issue. The issue is that very often, when we don’t start a new thread precisely because we don’t want to duplicate an existing one, we get no answers. So in many cases it’s either follow the rules and get no answer, or break the rules and get an answer. Reiterating that we don’t want duplicate threads will not solve the problem.
I used to test this with the old software with precise changing numbers of views. Old threads got opened much less often on their way down the first page.Usually, well framed, interesting questions are more likely to get replies than silly, unclear, done to death queries, regardless of whether they are tagged on an old thread or posted in a new thread.
Ah!the fact that from the front page of a forum a potential answerer can't tell whether a post resuscitating an old thread contains...
I don't make a habit of reviving old threads, so I'm afraid I don't have enough data. I haven't noticed any problems.Do you find that effective? Do you get a decent response rate?
If you've also done it without the preface, have you noticed a difference in the response rate based on whether or not the preface is included?
I don't have a problem with replies to the original question, as long as the new question is also addressed. After all, if a new question is added to an existing thread as opposed to being asked in a new thread, then at least in theory the idea is that the topics are close enough to each other that they can reasonably be addressed in a single cohesive thread. If the new question is so distinct from the original one as to effectively trigger a parallel discussion (as opposed to a continuation of the original discussion), then that's probably more of a hindrance than a help and that question should just be asked in its own thread.so that when someone does add a new question, the thread doesn't fill up with replies to the original post and no one replies to the new question.
If it's true that the appearance of thread opening dates on the main pages is a major factor in this, do you think that's worth having that information on the main page when it can be easily accessed with a single click if necessary? Ordinarily I wouldn't suggest removing information either; in this case it seems to be causing a problem, at no material benefit that I can see. Maybe there's a benefit I can't identify? I for one don't think I've ever really cared when a thread was opened, in deciding what threads to post in...I'm not sure I'd vote for taking information away.
I think this explains why I may choose not to answer a question or add input.the fact that to properly answer a question added to a previous thread you need to read the whole thread
I personally wouldn't pass a question because it is appended to a very old thread. It is the number of existing posts (e.g., 50) that puts me off.If it's true that the appearance of thread opening dates on the main pages is a major factor in this,
As I said in post 28, length of thread must be part of it. I'd certainly think twice about answering a question added to a 50-post thread. I might in the end, but only if it was something I thought was interesting and worth the time I would spend reading all the posts.So is the problem
- age of the thread
- length of the thread?