Which is more important?

[DEFYANT]

Which do you prefer?

1) User researches a topic using the search, locates a topic and posts a comment / question in the old thread?

or

2) User just starts a new thread to post question or comment?

I ask this because message board etiquette says search and post in already started threads. I have done this and received replies that would suggest that it was wrong to "bring back a dead thread". Pardon me for raising the :bs: flag but I figure the best way to get this right is to take on opinion poll from you all to get a better idea of what is right and wrong here.

[MM03MOK]

I ask this because message board etiquette says search and post in already started threads. I have done this and received replies that would suggest that it was wrong to "bring back a dead thread". Logan has asked that "dead threads" not be closed so topics can be resurrected as needed. It might be helpful if one does bring an "oldie but goodie" back to life, that you say so in the post. We aren't in the habit of reading dates on posts.

Sometimes we have to be reminded that our archives are a great resource of knowledge and experience. We were all n00bs here at one point in time.

[GarageMahal]

Good question...

I think there is a third option too. Research old threads and start new thread with links to old.

Not sure which I prefer. I like adding to the old thread to keep everything together but sometimes some of the original content is stale which can cause confusion.

Just my thoughts,
jta

[Dr Caleb]

I think there is a third option too. Research old threads and start new thread with links to old.


I thought so too. Many threads that get ressurected have stuff that don't change. Like the alignments specs for the front end. A post in the old thread isn't really nessecary, then perhaps a new thread with a link to the old one to ask a new question.

I've got many old threads bookmarked, and I was once a n00b. I don't mind if noobs ask a question after a little searching, cause it only takes me a couple seconds to dig up the old thread with the answer.

[Bradley G]

I feel it is not black and whiteNew threads seem to get more fresh responces.Looking back into the archives can be very informative yet may have been superceded by more recent info.
Bradley G
Then there's other instances where their is no choice!:banned:

[SergntMac]

I agree, it's not black and white and much depends on the topic. Only as an example, there's not too much new stuff to learn about adding/changing gear ratios. X will result in Y, here's the list of parts needed, name your ratio poison. However, other topics remain dynamic due to improvements in the market. A new oil blend, a new wax, or, a new tire compound/ tread design can make the discussion grow heated. Moreso, when the brand names don't change much.

We seem to be a crowd that loves exploring new ideas, but once we find what works for us, the exploring stops. We lock ourselves into what works, and the rest of it is BS. This makes an older thread useless, opinions and research from two years ago that settled a topic could be completely wrong today, and refreshing posts from way back when only confuses those who don't know what took place.

[CBT]

I like what Mary said. I joined this site late in the game, and like reading anything and everything about pretty much anything and everything that gets posted.

[SouLRioT]

What I find is that if someone writes a first post in a thread well enough, that the answer to their question is at the bottom of the page under similar threads.

[jobrien8]

Not to forget there are going to be new owners as Marauders are sold. So keeping the old threads as reference is good. What more people need to do is use the search option before asking the same old questions (oil/filters/spark plugs/etc.).