It`s my turn to have a go at the mods!

[Ian84]

It`ll probably get locked or deleted, but anyway here it is.


http://www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23985

__________________________
Lynda, moderator

mod rupert is right, please do not "stir"

 

[Richardp]

I think Rupert was dead right to lock it, poor mrs m will be covered in cobwebs by now waiting for grumpyduck to turn up just to tell her that he had the same problem, Hell! she must have had it fixed by now, she's probably in sheltered accommadation by now and having her dishes washed for her.

 

[Thermo]

so whats your problem? shes posted once a long time ago, never posted anymore. You may as well walk out the front door and shout your well meaning advice into the wind!

 

[gcol]

Although it seems a liitle weird to be posting after all that time has passed. If anyone has the same problem and searches the forum for it, then the post just might be of value. I don't see any harm in locking the post so long as the reply (with the possible solution) is still there. But having said that, I don't see any point in locking the thread either.
It's been mentioned in private communication between diynot "members" that the "net nannies" are over enthusiastic on here and are winding up more people than they are protecting. It's a shame cause it's a good forum.
Please be careful mods, cause you're beginning to spoil it for those that are making the site the good place to hang out that it is.

 

[moderator]

Ian 84, why is it your turn?

Neither the question or post has anything to do with you.

Replying to old posts is frowned upon because it:

Causes confusion
Helps no one (99% of the time)
Waste of time
Often as, was mentioned by Thermo “shes posted once a long time ago, never posted anymore”

So if a new poster asks a question of the op, they never will receive a reply since the op no longer posts.

If new members were to read the rules / guidelines in the first place they would never reply to an old post in the first place, so this “debate” would not be taking place.

I will leave the last word to Richardp

I think Rupert was dead right to lock it, poor mrs m will be covered in cobwebs by now waiting for grumpyduck to turn up just to tell her that he had the same problem, Hell! she must have had it fixed by now, she's probably in sheltered accommadation by now and having her dishes washed for her.

 

[Softus]

I've observed that the locking is not very discriminate - there are topics that are long running ones with much value, and to create a sequel just for the sake of the "one month" rule is more confusing that leaving the original topic open.

And yes - I'm referring to a particular topic that remains locked, despite my reasonable and polite protestation to you, Ms L. Moderator.

 

[gcol]

Replying to old posts is frowned upon because it:

Causes confusion
Helps no one (99% of the time)
Waste of time

Utter nonsense.

 

[mlb3c]

just a suggestion. everyone has his/her style...even mods. if you are too 'wordy'....there is criticism....if you are short and to the point...it comes across as almost rude. Why not just make the posting date bigger...more prominent...since it is pretty easy to drop yourself into this 'dilemma' in the first place. I dont think I'm the only one who doesnt 'catch' the date until a mod comes forward with...read rule such and such...lock, bang...end of.

 

[masona]

If new members were to read the rules / guidelines in the first place they would never reply to an old post in the first place, so this “debate” would not be taking place.

This is the whole point, there's nothing in the rules stating replying to old posts.

The answer given by grumpyduck maybe useful for someone else with a similar problem.

 

[breezer]

are you sure about that?

As i recall there was a rule shake up some time ago, and some rules seem to have been removed / renamed / re difiined

 

[mlb3c]

as far as reading the rules....perhaps in the 'updating'....they deleted that one (old posts)...maybe it was ...#3, 4, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18 or 19.
I coulda sworn it used to be there

maybe....(just maybe) the mods see a different set of rules...and not the updated ones from April 06....and we're all debating a misunderstanding

 

[masona]

are you sure about that?

As i recall there was a rule shake up some time ago, and some rules seem to have been removed / renamed / re difiined

Well, I can't see it from the forum rules here unless I missing something

 

[WoodYouLike]

Replying to old posts is frowned upon because it:

Causes confusion
Helps no one (99% of the time)
Waste of time
Often as, was mentioned by Thermo “shes posted once a long time ago, never posted anymore”

So if a new poster asks a question of the op, they never will receive a reply since the op no longer posts.

Dear Moderator.
I beg to differ on various fronts. Do you realise how the Internet works, or do you only see this forum (and don't take this the wrong way, please!)
As the person responsible for the webmarketing in our company I frequently find search-result on google, Yahoo, MSN etc linking to old post when checking our own statistics on how well our websites are doing. The DIY-not links are there (and pretty high up in the search-results also!) because for the 'searchers' they are still relevant.

 

[Softus]

are you sure about that?

It's not hard to get sure about it - the rules are one click away...

As i recall there was a rule shake up some time ago, and some rules seem to have been removed / renamed / re difiined

Yes, and what a mighty pain in the a**e that was, because all the old references that specifiy to a deleted or rearranged rule number no longer make any sense.

 

[Moz]

mods here can be complete arseh*les at times , but on this point rupe was correct ...