Steuard Jensen wrote:
> [Regarding the practice of resurrecting old threads rather than
> starting new ones.]
>
> Quoth Stan Brown <the_stan_brown RemoveThis @fastmail.fm> in article
> <MPG.1f194dd0fb4cb6fb98a5b5 RemoveThis @news.individual.net>:
> > That said, I would appreciate seeing comments from others.
>
> Having said that, here are a handful of concerns that come to my mind
> regarding thread resurrection:
>
> 1. Finding context is inconvenient. Yes, context is available on
> Google, but most of us don't post from there (nor do we keep years
> of local archives). So most of us are only likely to look at the
> context that's quoted in the first "resurrection" post.
That's not an argument against "thread resurrection". That's an
argument against avoiding use of Google. Some of us *do* read and post
from Google precisely because it enables us to coveniently check nearly
every relevant past discussion in Usenet before posting an error, a
redundancy, or an under-informed remark.
> 2. Context can be daunting. It's considered poor netiquette to post
> to a thread without being fairly familiar with the discussion that
> has already occurred there. So before following up to a
> resurrected thread, we should really go back and at least skim
> through the earlier posts. Some threads (especially interesting
> ones that are likely candidates for resurrection) can be really
> long, so we're looking at a serious time committment before we can
> even make a first post. (On the other hand, if people /don't/ do
> this, what was the value of the resurrection in the first place?)
The vast majority don't read RABT with the intention or desire to post
a reply. Lurkers -- and many occasional posters, like me -- do it for
the potential of learning something new about an aspect of Tolkien's
work that we might not know, or which might be presented in a new light
or in interesting prose.
In this particular case, I was delighted and informed by the Hammond
responses in this old thread to the queries about the Companion and
Guide. Without the resurrection, I'd have missed Hammond's feedback
altogether.
I also daresay that most posters contributing to very long threads
don't feel obliged by netiquette to read all the other posts before
joining the fray. It's advice, not a rule. Of course, those who do feel
so obliged are likelier to write on-target posts that will be better
appreciated by RABT readers. But there's only a likelihood of
improvement, not a guarantee.
And if someone feels moved to add an idea or share a response without
having "done their homework", in the full knowledge that they risk
posting something that is under-informed, redundant, or less
well-addressed than elsewhere in the thread, why should that poster not
feel free to take that risk and post anyway? Readers of such posts will
not feel bound to appreciate them more than they deserve, and will
quickly move on.
> 3. Fresh starts can be good. Sometimes, progress in a discussion
> stalls because people have grown entrenched in their positions
> (even if it hasn't devolved to a flame war). Waiting a few months
> and then opening the discussion from scratch can give people a
> chance to rethink their positions and perhaps be ready to move on.
> Resurrecting a thread could implicitly force people into their
> previous polarized roles from the start.
This criticism I think has merit. But it is offset by other relevant
facts.
1. No one is prevented from re-visiting an issue or a discussion in a
new thread because someone else resurrects an old one.
2. In fact, the resurrection invites both old posters (and lurkers) and
new ones to put fresh thinking into an issue that they might otherwise
not have been stimulated to address simply because the matter would not
not get brought up.
3. It's easier to respond to a post than to initiate one. Therefore
interesting discussions are more likely to move forward, and fresh
ideas be contributed, because the resurrected thread appears, where a
brand new one may have been aborted because it seemed too daunting.
More posts give us more options for learning and input, so it's better
to have new issues raised via old threads than not at all. Conversely,
if one's "new" perspective proves trite (to me), I'd just as soon see
it tacked on to a discussion that provides the context in which the
"re-poster" thought it "newsworthy" and which might otherwise be
interesting, than in a brand new thread that offers nothing else of
interest to me.
4. I agree that it is tempting to defend one's old, public positions
and that this redundancy may detract from a current discussion. But
presumably the re-poster considered that when choosing to resurrect,
and has reasons for not initiating a brand new thread. Of course, those
reasons may be "vengeance-driven". But in that case, you or I can
rescue the new discussion by taking it to a new thread with the
comment, "I find this discussion worthwhile and thought it could
benefit from a fresh start, so I'm giving it one. Now, on So-and-so's
point, it occurs to me that..."
5. I often feel that new discussions of old topics are diminished by
not reflecting the information and/or conclusions of old consensus --
especially those in which I have participated. But usually, frustration
prompts me to avoid the new discussion altogether because I don't feel
like re-iterating what I've said before and consider still relevant.
When, instead, an old thread is resurrected but the new comments omit
reference thereto, I am more likely to conclude that the old view was
noted but disagreed with. Or I'll point out that such-and-such
question/allegation has already been addressed/resolved elsewhere in
the thread, so it need not distract from the current discussion if
people will heed it. Some may, of course, think that the old point
inadequately addresses the matter, and will ignore my reference -- as
is their right, and as may be appropriate to prompt fresh
re-consideration. Either way, the resurrection approach works.
> 4. Participant shift. A discussion of Balrog Wings featuring me,
> Conrad, and Michael Martinez would be entirely different than a
> discussion of Balrog Wings featuring Troels, Stan, and Ojevind
> (believe me!). I submit that it could be quite misleading (or
> confusing to future archive readers) to suggest otherwise by
> starting the second as a followup to the first.
For me, all of RABT is one big discussion of Tolkien's works with many
side-discussions and participants. I don't see how a current discussion
begun in an old thread is any more dimiinished by the ghosts of past
participants than a current discussion in a current thread that
includes other discussants or sub-topics. The new participants will
just naturally take the discussion in different directions than the
past ones did -- but with the advantage of being able to draw upon
their observations, potentially generating additive insights and a more
comprehensive consensus.
> 5. Some things are best forgotten. No, really. 
At its worst,
> thread resurrection could be used to repeatedly bring back up
> arguments that most of the participants would prefer to just put
> behind them (at least for a while). That could be done without
> resurrection as well, of course, but posting a direct followup to
> someone's old post can feel much more aggressive (and impose a
> greater sense of obligation on their part to reply): it's got a bit
> of a feel of shoving their words back in their face.
Absolutely true. Consider the source, and gnore those threads.
> 6. Stifling of new ideas. I've been criticized before (along with my
> FAQ) for discouraging new discussion by posting answers that imply
> that everything about a topic has already been discussed before.
> That's not my intent, and it's not the intent of thread
> resurrection, but I fear that they could both lead to that mistaken
> impression: "you're only allowed to post if you're already /this/
> much of an expert". Starting fresh but posting pointers to the FAQ
> and to older discussions might be a bit less intimidating to
> newcomers.
I am particularly sensitive to the need to encourage newbies and
lurkers to participate lest Usenet wither. But in this case, remember
that it is only one post that pops up initially for the newbie/lurker
to read. Reading more in the thread is optional. If a re-poster chose
to add to -- rather than initiate -- a post, it is presumably because
that person values the previous input, and seeks a response that builds
upon it. A naive reply is less likely if the query is posted in the
context of the issue's discussion history -- and therefore the
newbie/lurker is less likely to get their head bitten off for making
such a reply, and is therefore less likely to slink off never to be
heard from again. RABT has to balance the interests of those who are
new to the subject matter with those who are long-steeped in it.
Resurrecting a post is one tool for doing that.
> So those are at least a few of my concerns about thread resurrection.
> I'd be interested in seeing a similar list of positive points about
> the practice, and in seeing counter-arguments to these.
Done.
Charles Stewart
>> Stay informed about: Question about 50th anniversary edition 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
