Please do NOT wake up old threads. It is messing up this forum. People who read the forum do not understand the "gap in time" between the current posts and the first posts in the thread. And ... you are freaking out the IORR editor...

You occupy my time so that I have to manage these "ghost threads", rather than spending time on posting info about the the latest tour rumours. My time is limited.

I will close any old theads people wake up, and clean up, so it is a waste of time, and if I think it happes too much, I will close those who abuse IORR by such wake-up posts. It should be easy to understand, really.

Bjornulf

What is Rockman going to do over breakfast then?

OK, stepped too far, sorry 'bout that!

.....crummy joke treacle....hhhaaaaaaaaa



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
.....crummy joke treacle....hhhaaaaaaaaa

My apologies...they don't all land!

Now...to stay on topic I do have a question. I know sometimes people are criticised for starting new threads when there are ones that exist for that topic. Should we not be using that search function or if so, what's reasonable? A year?

....No I thought it was a real wake up call treacle ... thanks man ..



ROCKMAN

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Rockman
.....crummy joke treacle....hhhaaaaaaaaa

My apologies...they don't all land!

Now...to stay on topic I do have a question. I know sometimes people are criticised for starting new threads when there are ones that exist for that topic. Should we not be using that search function or if so, what's reasonable? A year?

Hey treacle that one landed great, brought a big smile to my face, that it happened to land on Rockman's head and thread ....I think both him and Connections will survive.

But your questions mirror my own. If someone has something new to add to a previously covered Stones topic , I always thought it was good practice to search the topic and add to that thread instead of starting a new one. Actually keeps people from repeating the same stuff. The posts are obviously all individually dated so anybody can see when they originated. Seems it would keep the editor from having to merge threads and keep the discussions in one place something bv has been promoting....

peace

Quote
bv
Please do NOT wake up old threads. It is messing up this forum. People who read the forum do not understand the "gap in time" between the current posts and the first posts in the thread. And ... you are freaking out the IORR editor...

You occupy my time so that I have to manage these "ghost threads", rather than spending time on posting info about the the latest tour rumours. My time is limited.

I will close any old theads people wake up, and clean up, so it is a waste of time, and if I think it happes too much, I will close those who abuse IORR by such wake-up posts. It should be easy to understand, really.

Old Track talk threads ought to be an exception to that rule, I guess?

Quote
Witness

Quote
bv
Please do NOT wake up old threads. It is messing up this forum. People who read the forum do not understand the "gap in time" between the current posts and the first posts in the thread. And ... you are freaking out the IORR editor...

You occupy my time so that I have to manage these "ghost threads", rather than spending time on posting info about the the latest tour rumours. My time is limited.

I will close any old theads people wake up, and clean up, so it is a waste of time, and if I think it happes too much, I will close those who abuse IORR by such wake-up posts. It should be easy to understand, really.

Old Track talk threads ought to be an exception to that rule, I guess?

Sure. Just use common sense.

If there is a thread about a subject that was alive and kicking through active posts less than 24 hours ago, or just a day or a few days, then the thread is not old. Like yesterday I found four - 4 - different Mick Taylor threads on page one of this forum, so I merged them all into one. Then I found two other threads started like years ago, gaps of months and years, so I had to stop and clean up those. Track talks and other threads like Rockman's and other classic threads are eternal so they will never get old.

Bjornulf

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Rockman
.....crummy joke treacle....hhhaaaaaaaaa

My apologies...they don't all land!

Now...to stay on topic I do have a question. I know sometimes people are criticised for starting new threads when there are ones that exist for that topic. Should we not be using that search function or if so, what's reasonable? A year?

Maybe there should be a way to make a thread "read-only", as opposed to "read-write"! I'll be down in the lab experimenting

Ah, now I understand why the default search window is only 30 days.

Yeah but there are other setting in the drop box for the search window



ROCKMAN

I don't think many people are aware of that option

Quote
bv

Quote
Witness

Quote
bv
Please do NOT wake up old threads. It is messing up this forum. People who read the forum do not understand the "gap in time" between the current posts and the first posts in the thread. And ... you are freaking out the IORR editor...

You occupy my time so that I have to manage these "ghost threads", rather than spending time on posting info about the the latest tour rumours. My time is limited.

I will close any old theads people wake up, and clean up, so it is a waste of time, and if I think it happes too much, I will close those who abuse IORR by such wake-up posts. It should be easy to understand, really.

Old Track talk threads ought to be an exception to that rule, I guess?

Sure. Just use common sense.

If there is a thread about a subject that was alive and kicking through active posts less than 24 hours ago, or just a day or a few days, then the thread is not old. Like yesterday I found four - 4 - different Mick Taylor threads on page one of this forum, so I merged them all into one. Then I found two other threads started like years ago, gaps of months and years, so I had to stop and clean up those. Track talks and other threads like Rockman's and other classic threads are eternal so they will never get old.

The problem with that is that I know that I have common sense...I'm just not convinced that anyone else does.

Quote
Koen
I don't think many people are aware of that option

How come? They are just as visible, aren't they?

EDIT: Ah, got it! They're not using the function



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-12 09:33 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
bv

Quote
Witness

Quote
bv
Please do NOT wake up old threads. It is messing up this forum. People who read the forum do not understand the "gap in time" between the current posts and the first posts in the thread. And ... you are freaking out the IORR editor...

You occupy my time so that I have to manage these "ghost threads", rather than spending time on posting info about the the latest tour rumours. My time is limited.

I will close any old theads people wake up, and clean up, so it is a waste of time, and if I think it happes too much, I will close those who abuse IORR by such wake-up posts. It should be easy to understand, really.

Old Track talk threads ought to be an exception to that rule, I guess?

Sure. Just use common sense.

If there is a thread about a subject that was alive and kicking through active posts less than 24 hours ago, or just a day or a few days, then the thread is not old. Like yesterday I found four - 4 - different Mick Taylor threads on page one of this forum, so I merged them all into one. Then I found two other threads started like years ago, gaps of months and years, so I had to stop and clean up those. Track talks and other threads like Rockman's and other classic threads are eternal so they will never get old.

I was more thinking about real old Track talk threads, like the one for "Around And Around", which originated in late 2008 and later seemed to have had input in 2012.
[www.iorr.org]

As I have thought about an aspect of that song, I might for instance be interested in looking for what views had been expressed on "Around And Around" earlier. In such a situation I may easily be tempted to post in a thread like that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-12 11:54 by Witness.

[www.iorr.org]


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

But but but but but ... wot happens if I or anyone else were for example to (heaven forbid) take a BRITISH AIRWAYS flight to any or all of the forthcoming Stones shows, and in keeping with tradition - the world's crappiest airline would ensure they had a thoroughly miserable travelling experience from start to finish ?

Then we'd have to resurrect this thread ...

[www.iorr.org]

... and quite deservedly, tear a strip off BA !!

So BV please, do not consign the BA thread to the trash ... it might be needed over the forthcoming months as members of the Stones public misguidedly jump on British Airways flights to get to America for some of these shows.

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

Just start a new thread. Nobody cares if there was an old "BA sucks" thread. Like if there is a strike on the tube, you would not even bother to post about it may be?

Bjornulf

ok Bjornulf.

Quote
bv
Just start a new thread. Nobody cares if there was an old "BA sucks" thread. Like if there is a strike on the tube, you would not even bother to post about it may be?

Nobody cares ? I'm gutted to learn this, truly gutted .... I think I shall have to retire to my bed for a good cry. O woe, the injustice of it all, life can be so cruel and unfair on occasions ... etc

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

Thanks Bjornulf

I really owe u time...as usual !!!

ciao

Quote
Rockman
....No I thought it was a real wake up call treacle ... thanks man ..

no problem, and it saved me actually having to phone you.

Solution is start a new Thread and insert the old discussion Thread as a link as reference........

__________________________

Quote
paulywaul

Quote
bv
Just start a new thread. Nobody cares if there was an old "BA sucks" thread. Like if there is a strike on the tube, you would not even bother to post about it may be?

Nobody cares ? I'm gutted to learn this, truly gutted .... I think I shall have to retire to my bed for a good cry. O woe, the injustice of it all, life can be so cruel and unfair on occasions ... etc

Sorry it was a stupid comment by me. I try to avoid Heathrow if I can. I have no idea about how BA works, because I fly Star Alliance if I can. But if there is a problem with BA, just start a new thread, that is my advice. For this tour I mean.

Bjornulf

bv I don't get this whole thing about not been able to use old threads..if its that much of a problem for ya..just delete them when they get to a certain point of no return.

--------------
ColonialstoneNZ
--------------



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-12 21:37 by colonial.

Quote
bv

Quote
paulywaul

Quote
bv
Just start a new thread. Nobody cares if there was an old "BA sucks" thread. Like if there is a strike on the tube, you would not even bother to post about it may be?

Nobody cares ? I'm gutted to learn this, truly gutted .... I think I shall have to retire to my bed for a good cry. O woe, the injustice of it all, life can be so cruel and unfair on occasions ... etc

Sorry it was a stupid comment by me. I try to avoid Heathrow if I can. I have no idea about how BA works, because I fly Star Alliance if I can. But if there is a problem with BA, just start a new thread, that is my advice. For this tour I mean.

I was joking with you Bjornulf ... sorry. My warped sense of humour ! It's your message board, and a great one it is too. You do as you see fit, I've no quibbles.

The only reason I ever started it (the thread) all those years ago was because EVERY time I get messed about whenever I'm flying anywhere, it almost ALWAYS seems to involve British bloody Airways !!

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

An old thread is a live document in history. It might include a discussion that lasted for a week, a month or more, spanning one page, twenty pages or more. If you wish I may delete EVERY thread on IORR older than say six months. I did that once. May be ten years ago, because I was fed up of people waking up old threads. I might publish the name of the person who messed up IORR and made me do that, but I am not a person of a large revenge... It takes me a click of the keyboard, it will save me a lot of extra time, and you will get rid of nearly one million old threads.

It is like picking up a newspaper which is six months old, and reoplacing the front page with the latest news. You start reading, then you turn the pages. Then as you read, you have a feeling there is something wrong. And at one point you realize you have been fooled by old news.

There are theads that are timeless, that may have one post every week, or a dozen, for years. Then there are other theads with a short life. Just let them sleep as a document in time. Please don't make me force another purge of this forum. It is a last resort but it is very efficient.

Bjornulf

Quote
bv
An old thread is a live document in history. It might include a discussion that lasted for a week, a month or more, spanning one page, twenty pages or more. If you wish I may delete EVERY thread on IORR older than say six months. I did that once. May be ten years ago, because I was fed up of people waking up old threads. I might publish the name of the person who messed up IORR and made me do that, but I am not a person of a large revenge... It takes me a click of the keyboard, it will save me a lot of extra time, and you will get rid of nearly one million old threads.

It is like picking up a newspaper which is six months old, and reoplacing the front page with the latest news. You start reading, then you turn the pages. Then as you read, you have a feeling there is something wrong. And at one point you realize you have been fooled by old news.

There are theads that are timeless, that may have one post every week, or a dozen, for years. Then there are other theads with a short life. Just let them sleep as a document in time. Please don't make me force another purge of this forum. It is a last resort but it is very efficient.

yea fair enough mate :-)

--------------
ColonialstoneNZ
--------------

Quote
bv
An old thread is a live document in history. It might include a discussion that lasted for a week, a month or more, spanning one page, twenty pages or more. If you wish I may delete EVERY thread on IORR older than say six months. I did that once. May be ten years ago, because I was fed up of people waking up old threads. I might publish the name of the person who messed up IORR and made me do that, but I am not a person of a large revenge... It takes me a click of the keyboard, it will save me a lot of extra time, and you will get rid of nearly one million old threads.

It is like picking up a newspaper which is six months old, and reoplacing the front page with the latest news. You start reading, then you turn the pages. Then as you read, you have a feeling there is something wrong. And at one point you realize you have been fooled by old news.

There are theads that are timeless, that may have one post every week, or a dozen, for years. Then there are other theads with a short life. Just let them sleep as a document in time. Please don't make me force another purge of this forum. It is a last resort but it is very efficient.

Hi Bjornulf - Is there any way for the system to automatically change a thread to "read-only" from "read-write". Maybe do this to threads that have not been updated/appended to in a year? This way they are here to read but no one can re-awake them. Just asking...