I wish there were fewer new threads.

[c oliver]

Let me use myself and give two examples. I recently cooked a recipe from Julia Child's The Way to Cook and wanted to post about it. In the past I would likely have started a new thread. This time I did a search and found that several years ago, not surprisingly, the book had been a COTM so I added a reply to that thread. The second example is a review of a restaurant where we ate last week while in SF (actually two different ones). There were already threads on those so I just added my two cents worth. The advantage I see is that there are fewer threads on the same subject so it makes searching much easier. I see no disadvantages. It's still going to show up on New Posts both on the main board and also on the topical or regional boards. Anyone who has posted in the past will get to see an update. And maybe I'm just coming late to this party and most people already do that :) Just thought I'd throw it out.

[HillJ]

c oliver, and you didn't think that your post on Julia Child's recipe would get lost in a COTM for those CH's who skip those types of posts? If you hadn't mentioned it here, I would have missed it because I didn't participate in the COTM.

Fewer threads on a similar topic may mean less points of view, narrower focus on those topics and possibly less conversation. When a OP goes sour we all wish there were fewer threads but that's such a small minority of instances and the Mods take care of that. However, a greater expanse of dialogue is what fills these pages and I enjoy the read. The search engine is lacking but it's not enough reason for me to agree that fewer threads makes the usage optimal. Google will find a CH community post in under 2 secs.

[c oliver]

Good points, HillJ.

[ipsedixit]

The only problem I have with adding to an old post is that sometimes the old post contains like 300 replies, which actually deters me from opening up that thread.

Call me lazy, or whatever, but sometimes I just don't feel like scrolling through 300 unread threads to find the newest reply -- esp. when the reply is not replying to the original post (so that it is easily findable at the end of the thread) but is a reply to a reply so that it is buried in the middle of 300 replies like the proverbial needle in that damn haystack.

[toodie jane]

Well, I think it all comes down to how much of an information junkie (forgive the phrase) a poster happens to be. If you like scrolling through a thread looking for the most recent postings, you will, no matter what the relevance may APPEAR to be. No Big Deal. If you don't like to, you won't. It seems to me that Jim Leff chose the term 'chowhound' well; some hounds will sniff out anything they can find, others are more selective 'eaters'. It ALL works here, that's the beauty of it.

It's good to keep in mind that old saying different strokes for different folks. It certainly keeps things interesting around here at Chowhound.

[Jen76]

You can always do a find for the current year (Ctrl+F or Cmd+F for Macs) or even current month/year. That's what I do for really long, old threads. Shoots me right to the posts made recently.

[buttertart]

I agree this is a better way to go about it but have noticed a tendency for bossybootses to note snottily that the thread one is posting on is x months/years old. As if that matters. Seems to me that new thoughts on old topics are always worthwhile.

[c oliver]

Ooooh, I LOVE "bossybootses"! (The word not the people) I actually think new thoughts on old topics are BETTER than starting new threads. You can see the history. One of the restaurants I posted about generated a couple of questions from the OP. He might never have seen my comments otherwise. 'Course there are a (very) few egos out there who want to build their own stage :)

[buttertart]

It doesn't particularly bother me if there are new threads on old topics - except if it's the 900000th thread on something like "where should I eat that's close to x landmark". Those posts srike me as lazy. And it is silly to post on an old thread about restaurants or time-specific requests for assistance. However, it makes sense to me not to start new threads on old topics such as Julia, Marcella, etc when the new commentary can add to the existing discussion. As to old really long threads, it can be annoying to have to scroll through all the old stuff to get to the new, but sometimes one sees things one has overlooked previously that can be of interest and use.
PS I have strong bossyboots tendencies myself...no kidding, right? (it's a term used by my mom on select occasions by the way).

[small h]

There are sometimes very good reasons for noting (snottily or otherwise) that a thread is a little long in the tooth. If someone posts in 2003 seeking a venue for her rehearsal dinner, it's a little silly to chime in now. And I've noticed several posters reviving a gray-at-the-temples thread to gasp in astonishment that Restaurant X hasn't been mentioned. Possibly because Restaurant X was not open when the thread began. You'll also notice (if you are a crazy-pants like me) that many threads are revived because papa's got a brand new blog & wants an excuse to add his link to every conceivable thread.

Yours in friendship,
BossyBoots

[c oliver]

And as I wrote as OP, no, it doesn't work in all cases but a recipe from 2003 is just as timely. And a one year old restaurant review of a restaurant that's still in business can certainly stand updating. Thanks, crazy pants and bossyboots :)

[mcf]

I'm not sure it's helpful to mention the age of the thread; if there's no current interest, the OP will get no responses, figure out why, and be more cognizant in the future.

[small h]

I admire your faith in humanity. But I don't think someone clueless enough to dredge up an ancient thread is going to say to himself, "I see that everyone else on Chowhound has collectively agreed to ignore my post - that must be because the thread is so outdated."

[celeryroot]

Ill second

[toodie jane]

Sounds good to me.

Most people don't like doing searches, as the results can be all over the place as far as being pertinent. I find I must select "relevance", as the search engine selects for "most recent" by default.

[c oliver]

I agree with you. And I know that searching is sometimes a problem. But with a review of or request for a certain dish and esp. a restaurant, I'm making that another of my Chow resolutions.

[mcf]

I've also been making a point of searching for a thread before beginning a topic. I also make a point of searching them and posting the links to them in response when a new poster shows up and asks about something I know CH has extensive discussions about that they obviously never looked for. No chastising, just links and a hope that the idea sticks. :-)