Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

What's wrong with adding to an old thread?

20 replies

MuseumofInnocence · 05/02/2019 11:00

I sometimes find myself thinking about something, and I wonder if anyone has posted on MN about it. I search and an old thread comes up, and I'd be interesting in replying. I understand it's bad etiquette, but I don't really understand why.

I get it if it's an advice thread about a very live situation (cancel the cheque), but if it's a general topic (money, books, TV, holiday destinations, etc), why not? I doubt it's going to drown out someone's pressing issue.

Why is is wrong to add to an old thread?

OP posts:
EnoughSnowAlready · 05/02/2019 11:15

Because people waste their time replying to a poster about their then 3 month old baby only to discover that the child is now 5 and the sleeping issue has long been resolved.

EnoughSnowAlready · 05/02/2019 11:16

And it's just as easy to make your post the start of a new thread if it's that important.

MuseumofInnocence · 05/02/2019 11:20

I did make the point myself about live issues

OP posts:
WeaselsRising · 05/02/2019 11:25

Those of us with the Ops post coloured will not recognise your query and will reply to the OP. What's wrong with starting your own?

MuseumofInnocence · 05/02/2019 11:31

I think you’re misunderstanding my OP. I get there are some threads that are very live and very specific where the op has a specific query. However there are many threads that are much more general (anyone read a good book recently, what do people think of ghosts, what do you think of modern art, etc). Would people really get confused if those threads were posted on?

OP posts:
EnoughSnowAlready · 05/02/2019 11:31

If you understand the point about live issues then surely you understand why people hate old threads being bumped and how frustrating it can be to post a long reply to the OP only to discover that the skiing trip they were trying to plan was taken seven years ago.

Genuine question. What do you think the benefits of bumping ancient threads are?

StealthPolarBear · 05/02/2019 11:33

Agree op. People often get "urgh not this again, we already have 100threads on this".
But if they bump one they get criticised for that.

MuseumofInnocence · 05/02/2019 11:34

Aaaaahhhhhh!!!!

I am referring to non live issues

OP posts:
EnoughSnowAlready · 05/02/2019 11:36

Yes, people may still be confused, especially if it's a specific request e.g the OP looking for Thrillers written by female authors set in NYC and the OP or other posters are unlikely to read the new posts, only the OP. If people do reply they usually stop after a few posts when they realise that it's an old thread and become annoyed. It's much more sensible to start a new thread after having a quick check to see if there's a very recent one on the topic.

NorthEndGal · 05/02/2019 11:37

The problem is that not everyone is discerning when it comes to deciding if it is a live issue.

You haven't said, what is the problem with just starting a new thread, if you'd like to discuss that topic?

NoseyParrot · 05/02/2019 11:37

lol I once found a thread called 'sore boobs' (some other forum), it got me interested, I've read it ofc
the 2nd last message was like 'I stumbled on your thread accidentally, so, did you sort it out?'
the last was like 'I wonder how did you stumble it 10 years later?'
I replied 'maybe she has sore boobs'
I got permanently banned from there for it Hmm

MuseumofInnocence · 05/02/2019 11:38

The benefit of adding to an existing thread is that it would save creating a new thread if the question were broadly the same

OP posts:
MuseumofInnocence · 05/02/2019 11:39

I don’t see a problem with starting a new thread, but I equally don’t see the problem adding to an old one

OP posts:
EnoughSnowAlready · 05/02/2019 11:42

Surely it's more interesting to gather new replies than just read old ones from five years ago. As mentioned people will reply to the OP for a bit thinking that thread is recent but once they realise it isn't and become annoyed they rarely read to the bottom, stop posting and the thread dies. A new thread is much more likely to receive a lot of responses.

EngagedAgain · 05/02/2019 11:47

I get what you mean. However, I have often in the past got engrossed in a thread, only to realise someone has revived an old old one, and it's somehow lost its lustre. Grrr...

PuppyMonkey · 05/02/2019 11:50

Because daft people like me come along and add something to the revived thread only to see that they already posted the same reply in 2011 or whenever the thread was originally started.Grin

MuseumofInnocence · 05/02/2019 12:01

I think as a meta joke, I might post on this thread in 5 years time.

I suppose what one is saying is the etiquette is that it has to a blanket rule.

OP posts:
DadDadDad · 05/02/2019 12:32

In this situation, I think a good solution would be to start a new thread, but in the OP provide a link, saying "I was reading this old thread, and had some thoughts on the topic....".

That way, no-one gets annoyed at being ensnared by a zombie, but they can re-read the previous discussion if it helps.

Azelma · 05/02/2019 12:38

I think a lot of it is down to the culture of the forum.

My husband posts on a forum where it is frowned upon to start a new thread on a subject where one already exists. It is expected that you search for a thread and add to it. It is common for someone to resurrect their own thread from several years previously and update what happened.

Bumblebee39 · 05/02/2019 12:53

I think it depends how long ago it was how many answers there are etc.
Nothing worse than reading 400+ comments to realise it was dealt with long ago

I do sometimes find a thread a couple of weeks old where nobody answered the OP and feel sad though (especially when it's relationships or M.H. etc.)

New posts on this thread. Refresh page