Community Chat

[sunshine45]

that SEARCH bar is one of the BEST features they added when they revamped the boards.

[willdob3]

---

@missy1 wrote:

I generally don't start new threads. Just not my thing. I will pull up an old topic, that I want to add to it, but not start a new thread. confusing?

For example...... I pulled up a 2 week Bachelor thread to remind others it's on tonight.       I did not need to start a new thread for this.

---

This is the preferred thing to do on most forums. Many have rules about it suggesting people search for a subject before starting a new thread. It makes sense to add to an older, informative thread rather than have many threads with limited or repetitive info. 

I search for threads on a subject & add to them most of the time. I only start new ones when the subject is not found.

[MaggieMack]

---

@willdob3 wrote:

---

@missy1 wrote:

I generally don't start new threads. Just not my thing. I will pull up an old topic, that I want to add to it, but not start a new thread. confusing?

For example...... I pulled up a 2 week Bachelor thread to remind others it's on tonight.       I did not need to start a new thread for this.

---

This is the preferred thing to do on most forums. Many have rules about it suggesting people search for a subject before starting a new thread. It makes sense to add to an older, informative thread rather than have many threads with limited or repetitive info. 

I search for threads on a subject & add to them most of the time. I only start new ones when the subject is not found.

---

But if the thread is over a year old? Why not start a new one? What intrigues me is that an old thread will be brought up by a first time poster. ?????

[Mominohio]

---

@tantallum wrote:

LOL, there is another post on the beauty board right now with one poster demanding to know why the OP didn't just reply to an old thread instead of starting a new one!!

darned if you do, darned if you don't...

---

Amen.

If you bring up the same topics too often, you're a troll. If you answer an older one, you're a troll. 

Unless the topic is so outdated as to have no value, or someone is bringing up loads of old ones to disrupt the forum, I don't see the problem.

[dooBdoo]

---

@MaggieMack wrote:

---

@willdob3 wrote:

---

@missy1 wrote:

I generally don't start new threads. Just not my thing. I will pull up an old topic, that I want to add to it, but not start a new thread. confusing?

For example...... I pulled up a 2 week Bachelor thread to remind others it's on tonight.       I did not need to start a new thread for this.

---

This is the preferred thing to do on most forums. Many have rules about it suggesting people search for a subject before starting a new thread. It makes sense to add to an older, informative thread rather than have many threads with limited or repetitive info. 

I search for threads on a subject & add to them most of the time. I only start new ones when the subject is not found.

---

But if the thread is over a year old? Why not start a new one? What intrigues me is that an old thread will be brought up by a first time poster. ?????

---

@MaggieMack, I think in general @missy1 and @willdob3 are referring to more current threads, with information which still is pertinent.

Regarding the old threads popping up with a reply from new posters...  it might be that they don't know much about how the forums work, yet, so they type a word in the search box (or in the topic line, thinking of starting a new thread), they see a matching topic, click and respond.

[MaggieMack]

@dooBdoo, you are probably right, but in the limited number of threads I've initiated, I've paid no attention to the suggestions. Maybe my topics are just too arcane, lol!

[dooBdoo]

---

MaggieMack wrote:

@dooBdoo, you are probably right, but in the limited number of threads I've initiated, I've paid no attention to the suggestions. Maybe my topics are just too arcane, lol!

---

Hah!  Arcane?  Well, I doubt that, @MaggieMack!

[Snicks1]

---

@dooBdoo wrote:

---

@truffle wrote:

I don't know why this happens either but maybe old threads should just be completely removed as in permanently after 1 month, 2 months?  Certainly no reason to keep a thread that is a year or two old.  Is there? 

---

As mentioned previously, the addition of "suggestions" for the search box and new topic subject line, plus the fact that they opened up access to ancient threads (I've seen some resurrected from 2010) seems to be the culprit.

I think some of the older threads (such as those in Recipes, for example) serve a purpose but as I said before it seems to me the older threads could, at least, be closed for comment.  In programming, that kind of thing is normally an easy process.

(Since this thread isn't in the Suggestion Box, it might help to add @Community_Team, @Eva-QVC,  @Keyai and @Brittany-QVC to the discussion.)

---

I did, on 1/18/2016 put my suggestion in the suggestion box category, as we can see on that thread, no one from QVC has responded, again. This was the result the first time I made the suggestion also. I give up on them. Good luck if anyone wants to pursue it. I think it is nuts to have threads, in general, showing back up years after they first originated, but whatever. It would seem to be a simple thing to have the originating date stamp there, on the thread title, but maybe not. Or maybe it's all in who's asking, lol.

[VanSleepy]

There are 2,400 pages of forum topics.  Most of those 2,400 pages are just the original post with all the responses wiped out.  It seems to encourage resurrecting years-old OPs.

[HappyDaze]

Sometimes it is a troll stirring up an old controversial topic, sometimes it is schill for a company promoting their product (like the recent bra posts), and other times who knows.