Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
#1Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 10:29am
Okay, so i'm curious about people's preferences. It seems that whenever someone starts a new thread on an existing topic, people often get a bit peeved, and the more helpful people kindly offer links to the previous thread(s) that may be of interest to the poster, while some others tell the person to use the search function and stop making new threads to discuss existing topics.
On the other hand, when someone does use the search function and finds a relevant existing thread on a topic that they are curious about and adds to it, some people (perhaps different people) get upset that an old thread is being revived.
So what would be the best etiquette for a new-ish person to follow who wants to discuss a topic that they may be just discovering, when other more knowledgeable people have previously discussed it? Should they search for an existing thread and add to that discussion, or start a new thread? It seems to me that the former would be preferable so that other new people can also see the history of the discussion, but i'm curious to know if there is a majority view on the subject, or if the preferences are just split evenly between the two options. Thanks!
Updated On: 8/22/15 at 10:29 AM
ChiTheaterFan
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/9/15
#2Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 10:44am
I'm not sure why people get so up in arms either way but I would note that the search functionality on this site is pretty terrible. I have searched for a word I knew was in the title of a thread and it didn't come up. I scrolled back through pages and pages and found it, and confirmed that it did have the word I searched for. That can make it challenging to go that route. I once searched for a thread on a topic, didn't find anything on point, started one, and someone said I "stole" their prior thread. (I'm not crying any tears or anything. Just noting it happened. I don't believe it's necessary to respond to such things.) It would be much nicer if people recognized that and just nicely responded with a link, but I realize that's unrealistic here. It's a board about drama after all!
I too have noticed this. One example was in one of the "reviews" thread someone commented it should only be used for posting and commenting on an official review. Then someone started a new thread on a narrowe topic about that show and someone said "I don't know why we need a new thread when we have a reviews thread." This was a few months back when I had just discovered this board and I was pretty confused as to proper posting etiquette. I've since realized there really is none. So thanks for posting this.
After Eight
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/5/09
#3Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 10:44am
I'd say do the search.
That would spare us 15,826 new Sondheim, Fun Home, and Hamilton threads ---- every ten minutes.
#4Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 10:47am
You have to factor out Philly and other people who seem to revive old threads to not add anything new to the discussion (See Jeremy Jordan underwear thread).
The biggest peeve seems to be when a thread is created through the perceived lens of narcissism and a view that the poster is creating a new thread to put themselves at the center of the discussion. Like starting a new Hamilton thread to make sure your opinion is set off from the rest, despite there being a handful of active threads discussing the show already, etc.
I usually post links to existing threads when someone creates a new one merely because the Search function is a bit wonky on here, and I realize some people don't realize they are repeating an existing thread, and especially for a smaller show, it's best to keep all the discussion about that show in one place, rather than bifurcate the discussion across multiple threads.
I don't think anyone resurrecting an old thread and asking something valid about an old production or bringing something of value to an old discussion would get flamed.
Of course, this also has to do with board software that is missing a few functions, like the ability to close threads, merge threads, etc. On other boards, a moderator would add a link to the other thread and then close that one, forcing the discussion on the original, whereas here it becomes another reply and then people will still use both, etc.
#5Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 10:50am
ChiTheaterFan said: "I'm not sure why people get so up in arms either way but I would note that the search functionality on this site is pretty terrible. I have searched for a word I knew was in the title of a thread and it didn't come up. I scrolled back through pages and pages and found it, and confirmed that it did have the word I searched for. That can make it challenging to go that route."
Anyone not searching for a term in "Subject only" is likely to not find what they are looking for...
Huss417
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/15/03
#6Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 10:57am
I agree what haterobics said. I don't mind old threads coming back but seems some posters, Philly as an example just does it with nothing to add to the thread.
"I hope your Fanny is bigger than my Peter."
Mary Martin to Ezio Pinza opening night of Fanny.
ChiTheaterFan
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/9/15
#7Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 11:22am
haterobics said: "ChiTheaterFan said: "I'm not sure why people get so up in arms either way but I would note that the search functionality on this site is pretty terrible. I have searched for a word I knew was in the title of a thread and it didn't come up. I scrolled back through pages and pages and found it, and confirmed that it did have the word I searched for. That can make it challenging to go that route."
Anyone not searching for a term in "Subject only" is likely to not find what they are looking for...
"
Yes, I did that. It did not work. I use the app most of the time and I think there is a problem with the search function.
dramamama611
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/4/07
#8Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 11:40am
When there us already a thread on your topic right there on the first page, why start another? (Hamilton)
When someone asks a question about a show that's been closed, isn't it quite LIKELY that an old thread exists? (What did people think of Legally Blonde, for example.)
Bringing back old threads for no reason or responding to them like they are fresh is just egotistical.
We've had lots of folks TELL us they looked and couldn't find a thread, or because they felt their question was in a different mind set so they started a new thread. I've never seen anyone get grief for that.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
Updated On: 8/22/15 at 11:40 AM
madela2
Stand-by Joined: 6/4/14
#9Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 11:43am
I find the search function on here to be pretty ineffective most of the time. I always use google to search and it usually comes up with much better information. For example, I would type in the google search bar "hamilton seating site:www.broadwayworld.com" and it comes up with a bunch of threads.
jimmycurry01
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/28/05
#10Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 12:00pm
If a thread has been dead longer than a year, it is time for a new conversation. It is not ok, on any forum, to bring back a six year old thread.
ChiTheaterFan
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/9/15
#11Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 1:27pm
One thing I will definitely say is I would prefer someone start a new thread with "spoilers" in the thread title rather than put spoilers in the general thread. Sometimes even with a spoiler alert in a post you can accidentally see it when you're skimming through.
#12Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 1:32pm
Along the same line of thought, there's a really irritating double-standard that exists on this board that nobody seems to acknowledge. We see all these long threads that go on for pages and pages, that contain all kinds of arguments, personal attacks, side-conversations and complete diversions from the original topic. Or sometimes the topic is just so broad that the discussion is difficult to keep track of. Nobody on this board has any problem with clogging up these relevant threads, but the moment someone starts a new thread, they are criticized.
For example, around Tony Time:. I brought up this point a few months ago and I was completely shot down immediately: I proposed that was actually EASIER to have a different thread to discuss each category, because having one thread to discuss all the categories gets really haphazard, and no one can keep track of the discussion around one single category Immediately people freaked out and said stuff like "wat???? duh it's easier to have just one thread why should we have so many threads duh"
(I'm not talking about those threads that are just started to set their own opinion apart from the rest, I'm more talking about the threads that are started to discuss "featured actor in a musical," for example, when there might already be a crazy "acting nominations" thread)
But here's a thought: it's actually easier to skip past 8 threads than it is to skip past 100 unrelated posts. Threads on the main board hardly take up any space. It's so easy to ignore them, but pages and pages of haphazard discussion about all kinds of unrelated stuff, ARE HARDER TO SIFT THROUGH
phew, sorry about the rant.
#13Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 1:39pm
JBroadway said: "For example, around Tony Time:. I brought up this point a few months ago and I was completely shot down immediately: I proposed that was actually EASIER to have a different thread to discuss each category, because having one thread to discuss all the categories gets really haphazard, and no one can keep track of the discussion around one single category Immediately people freaked out and said stuff like "wat???? duh it's easier to have just one thread why should we have so many threads duh"
OK, but if you admit things here never stay on topic to begin with... then you are making a leap of faith that somehow all of these threads would make people stay on topic. Rather than it just spread the Tony talk across more and more threads without structure. And that seems... optimistic for BWW. 
I don't read Tony threads, though, so I'm fine either way.
#14Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 1:44pm
You're right, and I guess I'm sort of cramming 2 points into one here.
My first is that there is a double standard, where people hate it when even 1 unnecessary thread is created, but they are fine with copious amounts excess posting.
My second, related, point is that sometimes having multiple specific threads is actually more organized and easy to follow than one, broad thread topic.
#15Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 1:48pm
I see that as another deficit in the board software. If there was more of a nested reply setup, where tangents could be collapsed upon disinterest, it would be less of an issue (although, admittedly, Philly and others would still do whatever they want without regard). But on a community board, there is really no way to tell people not to engage in conversations that arise... We shouldn't put the onus on making people overcompensate where technology can assist.
Updated On: 8/22/15 at 01:48 PM
#16Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 1:54pm
Speaking of old threads, is there someone who can find the very first thread on this board?
"Noel [Coward] and I were in Paris once. Adjoining rooms, of course. One night, I felt mischievous, so I knocked on Noel's door, and he asked, 'Who is it?' I lowered my voice and said 'Hotel detective. Have you got a gentleman in your room?' He answered, 'Just a minute, I'll ask him.'" (Beatrice Lillie)
#17Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 2:00pm
I think there was a board before this, and who knows how the rollout happened, but this is the earliest thing in search?
https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?thread=15360
#18Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 2:47pm
jimmycurry01 said: "If a thread has been dead longer than a year, it is time for a new conversation. It is not ok, on any forum, to bring back a six year old thread.
Leaving pinto's nonsensical bumping aside, sometimes there are very good threads from at least 6 years ago about the shows from that season. Many times I'll come to a show late and bump old threads (which already have a lot of excellent posts) to see if anyone has new thoughts all these years on.
Otherwise I agree 100% with everything dramamamma said.
....but the world goes 'round
SmokeyLady
Broadway Star Joined: 10/29/14
#20Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 2:59pm
I would always say search first. I love to read previews threads. Even before I created an account, I would often find a new show that I liked (one that recently opened or was revived) and look for the previews thread. There's no reason to ask what people thought of WOMEN ON THE VERGE when it was in previews when there is a 40+ page thread on it.
"Sticks and stones, sister. Here, have a Valium." - Patti LuPone, a Memoir
#21Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 3:25pm
jimmycurry01 said: "If a thread has been dead longer than a year, it is time for a new conversation. It is not ok, on any forum, to bring back a six year old thread. "
I don't see why not. Sometimes old knowledge is forgotten. And oftentimes old threads can be hilarious, however inadvertently.
"This thread reads like a series of White House memos." — Mister Matt
jimmycurry01
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/28/05
#22Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 3:42pm
LizzieCurry said: "jimmycurry01 said: "If a thread has been dead longer than a year, it is time for a new conversation. It is not ok, on any forum, to bring back a six year old thread. "
I don't see why not. Sometimes old knowledge is forgotten. And oftentimes old threads can be hilarious, however inadvertently.
"
I think in that case a new thread should be stated with a reference or link to an ancient thread. It is great to revisit old tips, but if a thread hasn't been seen in more than half a decade, I think a new thread is warrranted.
#23Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 6:54pm
In terms of sharing opinions about a show, every show gets a preview thread and a reviews thread. People put a lot of thought and time into their contributions, and those threads remain valid as new people see the show and contribute.
It's perfectly valid to start a new thread asking about seating or rush policies or an album even, but starting a new thread to call attention to your own opinion is narcissistic and rude to the other people on the board who have shared their opinions in the main thread.
After a certain amount of time goes by, new threads can be started legitimately. But the old thread usually contains someone who shares your opinion or would like to discuss it.
#24Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 8:03pm
DO WHATEVER THE F*CK YOU WANT !
Use my fabulous TodayTix code: JEYCY
#25Searching/reviving old threads vs starting new ones
Posted: 8/22/15 at 8:28pm
^
I think it wants you to block it...
"Sticks and stones, sister. Here, have a Valium." - Patti LuPone, a Memoir
