HOME > Chowhound > Site Talk >

Discussion

Very old topics recently?

Even though I've been around here a long time I still miss some of the specific site functionality from time to time. In the past few days I've noticed several VERY old topics being resurrected.

These used to come up often, when related discussions would appear at the bottom of whatever topic was being read. I thought that listing had gone away with one of the facelifts of a year or so ago. So....... is there a specific reason for 6 or 7 year-old topics to be rising again now?

There has been lots of debate about the use (ful) or (less) ness of these on the boards. Generally they're fine, if they help someone learn or solve a problem. But not so much if they answer a specific question years later.

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. Maybe someone actually bothered to search for info on their topic and added to it? Or, more likely, the older thread appeared in the "discussions you might like" box on another, newer thread.

    Since the original date now appears when a thread has a new post, it's easy not to revisit something time-sensitive.
    Much better than it used to be. When I initiate a time-specific thread, I include the date in the title as a heads up for anyone who sees it in the future.

    8 Replies
    1. re: greygarious

      I thought "Discussions you might like" was gone. I must not use whatever view it shows up in.

      1. re: Midlife

        You seem to be right - I don't see it here now but did just a few weeks ago.

        1. re: greygarious

          I have something called "Trending Now" not sure if that's the same?

      2. re: greygarious

        Searching is such a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" thing. If you are on a new board and you search, and find old threads, and add your input, you get people saying things like "Ummm, you DO know this thread is 7 years old, RIGHT?!" If you post a new thread, you get people tumbling over themselves to tell you to do a search, because this has all been discussed before. I've even seen the SAME POSTER saying those things! Confusing much?!

        It seems the only way to get past this gauntlet is to start a new post to tell people your question, explain that you'e searched, include a list of tips and recommendations from your search and ask for current input. I've gotten some really good information from posting that way, but I've been here for 12 years, so I know the ropes. I do wish people would go easier on newbies who don't know this secret magic formula.

        1. re: Chris VR

          I contribute to old threads without hesitation. If it's the same question or idea why not?

          1. re: Chris VR

            "If you are on a new board and you search, and find old threads, and add your input, you get people saying things like "Ummm, you DO know this thread is 7 years old, RIGHT?!"

            Now there is an easy one to head off. I simply say "I know this is an old thread, but..." and that takes care of the issue.

            1. re: Servorg

              Yea, that happens a lot which I don't understand. If the topic is still relevant. Some threads just go dormant, doesn't make them obsolete. I agree, I like to preface my post as well.

            2. re: Chris VR

              Seriously. It's unfortunate people have to apologize to start a new thread. Sometimes the hall monitors get on my nerves.

          2. I think it is due to google searches, when a reply to an old thread is from a first time poster I think they found chowhound from a search engine

            When the thread is renewed by an existing chowhounder I think ADD or someone who wants to communicate to anyone

            2 Replies
            1. re: Alan408

              Excuse me - what does not wanting to duplicate existing ideas have to do with attention deficit disorder? And the idea of CH is to share info and inspiration with others who are interested in food, i.e., "anyone". If you want to communicate to only one person, unless they have contact info on their profile and you e-mail them privately, you ARE communicating with "anyone", not just the OP.

              1. re: Alan408

                Sometimes I check the profile of the poster who resurrects an old thread. If this is their first and only post, it is quite likely that they found it via a general web search (google or other). Recently one such poster wrote 'I searched for "I hate [...tv cook...]" and glad I found this thread.'

                e.g.
                http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/480494
                http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/5563...
                http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/1355...

              2. Part of it might be more people browsing and interacting on Chowhound's mobile platform, where the date of the original post is not provided.

                1. damned if you start a new post, "HOW DARE YOU START A NEW TOPIC WHEN THERE IS ONE RIGHT HERE ON PAGE 167 I'VE BEEN WAITING ON FOR YEARS!!!"

                  damned if you resurrect an old relevant or irrelevant post, "THIS POST IS 6-7 YEARS OLD NOW, WHO CARES?? THE OP IS LONG GONE AND YOU'RE STUPID FOR BOTHERING! JOIN US ON SOME CHATTY SURVEY THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FINDING GOOD CHOW IN ANY AREA!" YOU WANT FOOD???? GOTO YELP, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!"

                  8 Replies
                  1. re: Gastronomos

                    OK, well I'm awake now; good morning Gastro!

                    [I've always thought that there might be an FAQ section on these boards -at least to give Kathryn in NY and other mods elsewhere a break from the tedium of answering the same e.g. "Times-Sq.-with-kids" query for the umpteenth time- but I'm guessing that the same server costs that led CBS to eliminate the resto links (which courtesy I sorely miss) argues against that happening.]

                    1. re: Phil Ogelos

                      Good Morn, Phil.

                      The caps were a mock copy of some replies to any post by some. not me necessarily.

                      You choose ONE board, the Manhattan board to ask about the "umpteenth time"

                      OK. I no longer bother with that board. and the "umpteenth time" isn't the reason.

                      What about the rest of the boards? Do you not see what the real problem is?

                      1. re: Gastronomos

                        I understand what caps mean, gastro, thanks.

                        I was making a point manifest in the Manhattan boards that I know happens elsewhere: balancing archival insights with the urge to have the most up-to-date commentary. Some believe the former are irrelevant; I'm happy to read all the C'Hound site has to offer, no matter how old the submissions might be. And that's the gist of this thread, no?

                        That perception may indicate I don't understand "what the real problem is" but I'm afraid neither of your posts has brought me any closer to understanding what that "real" is. Sorry.

                          1. re: Gastronomos

                            That particular thread, astro, is a sort of 'nebenkriegsschauplatz' [sorry, don't have the Greek translation] to the issue at hand, but the essence of it I think confirms my point, so, thank you.

                      2. re: Phil Ogelos

                        I think this answers my question. Does Kathryn in NY work for CH? Are "mods" moderators? Are there mods for every board? I read CH pretty regularly and post occasionally, but Kathryn is always the first one on and usually asking the same questions to focus the OP.

                    2. Anybody else noticing that the OP is... kinda right?

                      It's not that old topics are getting bumped. That always happened. It's that A LOT of old topics are getting bumped just recently. I'm thinking maybe Chowhound.chow.com somehow managed to significantly improve its ranking in Google searches recently, get more results onto that all-important first page?

                      7 Replies
                      1. re: cowboyardee

                        I noticed it late last week. I have no real explanation for it thought.

                        1. re: cowboyardee

                          There just seems to be a greater and greater interest in food and the online search engines (Google plus the various other dwarfs) makes it easy to parachute into the middle of the food jungle. You have no idea where you've landed, but you can leave your machete mark on the virtual tree (thread) by simply registering and hitting a few keys (Date of post - what the hell is that all about?). What could be more intoxicating?

                          1. re: Servorg

                            In the past week the interest in food has increased?

                            1. re: fldhkybnva

                              Seems like a pretty abrupt uptick in one-off posters to me as well. The internet's interest in food probably doesn't change quite that quickly. Seems more like a result of improved search engine optimalization on CH's part than an inexplicably sudden surge of interest. Though there could be other possibilities I just don't know much about. Or I could be imagining the whole thing, but it doesn't seem like it.

                              1. re: cowboyardee

                                I don't think you're imaging it and it'd be interested to know if any search functions changed.

                            2. re: Servorg

                              I love the visual of parachuting into the middle of the food jungle and leaving a machete mark on a thread. Very Zorro-like. :-)

                            3. re: cowboyardee

                              I didn't just imagine this. I don't really mind the old posts, but I am invested enough in participation here that it bothers me to 'waste' time on a post that seems to miss the importance of the thing I find most rewarding here ...... the conversation.

                              When someone 'randomly' posts to a 6 or 7 year-old topic it is usually out of context and borders on being annoying to have to 'set the poster straight' about how things are.

                              Apologizes to whomever took me to task for not just 'going with it' (hard to check who it was on my iPhone). Actually, I think it's harder to deal with on a mobile device because giving 'guidance' and 'references' is really much harder in mobile. Just sayin'.