HOME > Chowhound > Site Talk >

Very old topics recently?

Midlife Mar 29, 2014 02:55 PM

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)
  1. greygarious RE: Midlife Mar 29, 2014 03:26 PM

    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
      Midlife RE: greygarious Mar 29, 2014 03:53 PM

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

      1. re: Midlife
        greygarious RE: Midlife Mar 29, 2014 06:19 PM

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

        1. re: greygarious
          coll RE: greygarious Mar 30, 2014 06:22 AM

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

      2. re: greygarious
        Chris VR RE: greygarious Mar 30, 2014 06:21 AM

        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
          fldhkybnva RE: Chris VR Mar 30, 2014 06:54 AM

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

          1. re: Chris VR
            Servorg RE: Chris VR Mar 30, 2014 06:58 AM

            "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
              fldhkybnva RE: Servorg Mar 30, 2014 07:07 AM

              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
              Samalicious RE: Chris VR Mar 30, 2014 07:24 AM

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

          2. a
            Alan408 RE: Midlife Mar 29, 2014 04:10 PM

            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
              greygarious RE: Alan408 Mar 29, 2014 06:13 PM

              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
                paulj RE: Alan408 Mar 29, 2014 06:32 PM

                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.'


              2. ipsedixit RE: Midlife Mar 29, 2014 06:22 PM

                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. Gastronomos RE: Midlife Mar 30, 2014 07:30 AM

                  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!!!"


                  8 Replies
                  1. re: Gastronomos
                    Phil Ogelos RE: Gastronomos Mar 30, 2014 07:36 AM

                    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
                      Gastronomos RE: Phil Ogelos Mar 30, 2014 07:45 AM

                      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
                        Phil Ogelos RE: Gastronomos Mar 30, 2014 07:57 AM

                        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: Phil Ogelos
                          Gastronomos RE: Phil Ogelos Mar 30, 2014 08:08 AM


                          1. re: Gastronomos
                            Phil Ogelos RE: Gastronomos Mar 30, 2014 08:51 AM

                            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.

                            1. re: Phil Ogelos
                              Gastronomos RE: Phil Ogelos Mar 30, 2014 09:04 AM

                              I was agreeing with you

                              1. re: Gastronomos
                                Phil Ogelos RE: Gastronomos Mar 30, 2014 09:19 AM

                                Missed that part; I'm satisfied.

                      2. re: Phil Ogelos
                        JC2 RE: Phil Ogelos Mar 31, 2014 11:38 AM

                        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. cowboyardee RE: Midlife Mar 30, 2014 01:12 PM

                      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
                        fldhkybnva RE: cowboyardee Mar 30, 2014 01:19 PM

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

                        1. re: cowboyardee
                          Servorg RE: cowboyardee Mar 30, 2014 01:28 PM

                          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
                            fldhkybnva RE: Servorg Mar 30, 2014 02:23 PM

                            In the past week the interest in food has increased?

                            1. re: fldhkybnva
                              cowboyardee RE: fldhkybnva Mar 30, 2014 02:38 PM

                              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
                                fldhkybnva RE: cowboyardee Mar 30, 2014 02:43 PM

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

                            2. re: Servorg
                              LindaWhit RE: Servorg Mar 31, 2014 12:41 PM

                              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
                              Midlife RE: cowboyardee Mar 30, 2014 08:13 PM

                              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'.

                            Show Hidden Posts