# Why do people apologise for adding to old threads? + 'Solved' button once again



## siares

Hi all,
members who apologise for adding comments to old threads - what's the reason for this, please?

I have read other threads on 'solved button', and there's always somebody who says people would feel reluctant to re-open an old thread marked 'solved'.

I wonder if these things are not connected somehow. Is there some etiquette around this?

I'd love a 'solved' button, then the threads which end after several posts with: 'wait for other-variety-of-language speaker' wouldn't get stuck there just because the thread has some replies. Old threads would also get better answered if clearly 'un-solved' by adding a new question...

Would you feel reluctant to add a question to old thread if were marked 'solved'?

Thanks.


----------



## Kelly B

Different forums have different rules and traditions, and if you're accustomed to a different set of rules, it takes time to adjust. For example I participate now and then in a forum where posting in an old thread is considered "necromancy."  (I far prefer the _search first - it's probably here already!_ rule on WR, but of course this is what I'm more accustomed to).

If a new member apologizes while adding a good suggestion, and I happen to notice it, I'll often post or PM to say thanks, you're doing it right. 

I don't want a solved button.
A. Sometimes a discussion ends with all participants agreeing on a solution that someone later points out is wrong.  It depends who is on line.
B. Sometimes the solution proposed earlier for context X was a very good suggestion. But new member's suggestion might be truly brilliant - I certainly wouldn't want a closed button to inhibit that person from posting it!
C. And here I go again, I know, it's getting boring... I rarely post a new thread. Instead, I use the forums as a reference source for all those great ideas that cannot possibly all fit in the dictionary. I do this a lot! My own context is almost certainly slightly different from Original Context X, so my absolute favorite threads offer multiple solutions for various similar/related contexts with the same keywords, all in one place. A solved button will encourage people to post a new thread for every new context, like they do in those necromancy forums, forcing me to plow through lists of hundreds of threads before giving up in disgust and starting a new one, because yes, _it's probably here already!_ but I sure can't find it now...


----------



## siares

Thanks for answering, KellyB.


Kelly B said:


> I certainly wouldn't want a closed button to inhibit that person from posting it!


But I think they are inhibited as is: I think this from apologies.
Thanks for the argument on 'solved' button - I have read most threads in CS on this before, so I brought it up again only to see whether opposition to it has something to do with the _apologies_. I think threads are, to some extent, considered 'solved' if they are old. I certainly do feel inhibited from posting a question on these 'solved' threads because I expect to get no, few, or belated answers.

I want a dual solved-unsolved state for a thread, where 'solved' is a default state.
Every time a message is posted - without ticking 'mark as unsolved' - the thread goes to 'solved' status.
If I add a question to an old thread, or have a follow up question I want to be able to mark it, whilst posting a message, 'unsolved'.
If a commentator wants to add a comment rather than a question to an old thread -  they can leave the 'marked thread unsolved' button unticked.

I'd like that 'unsolved' button to save me from a sinking feeling as I am abiding by the rules = posting a question on old thread.

If you don't think the option for askers to mark the thread 'unsolved' good, do you have a suggestion for any hack for old threads going unanswered? Aside from: members 'should' open and answer old threads as often as they do with new threads.

Thanks.


----------



## Kelly B

It's interesting - we have completely opposite opinions about the probable effect of a solved button, and I admit don't know which result is more likely.

For the situation as it exists today:

I don't know about the other forums, but in the French forums we're allowed to request a bump after 24 hours if we haven't received a satisfactory reply. This has the advantage of drawing it to the moderators' own attention, as well - I've found they'll sometimes take that opportunity to respond themselves in addition to moving it to the front page. Keep in mind that people who were subscribed to the old thread are notified about the new post with an Alert, too, so that's already an advantage. This week, in fact, I was Alerted to a thread from 2004 with two new replies, though one of those was just a request for more context.... 

Failing that, once or twice I've sent a PM asking someone that I know is familiar with the subject matter to take a look; and I've received a few of those PMs myself, as well. If the member has been waiting a reasonable length of time and has done his best to offer sufficient context already I don't mind that, even if I don't always have a good suggestion to offer.

(If a question wasn't posted in public, or there wasn't any context, or it was posted fifteen minutes ago, I tend to ignore PMs about it, though.)


----------



## siares

Interesting difference of opinion!
I notice sometimes members subscribe just to answer an old thread, unapologetically, and disappear. It is strange that people who remain active answerers should feel differently about doing the same.
I could PM, but I am not always in a sufficiently active mood to dare that. 
As for 24 hours: I know I can get an answer immediately if I post a new thread, and I sometimes need it reasonably soon. (This probably just goes for very active forums). 

If I've waited 24 hours, I don't want to report and face another hours' wait. Again, depends on my mood, but this can feel like begging. I am aware that this is completely irrational, but perhaps no more so than being reluctant to add solutions on "solved" threads.

Pm solution isn't available to new members; I once reported a very first post by a new member added onto old thread, and that was answered by a moderator, luckily. I don't know about reporting - whether new members feel comfortable reporting their posts.. I wouldn't have.


----------



## hack3rcon

Hello.
Please add "Solved" button. It help users for create more thread.

Thank you.


----------



## Cagey

A word of explanation: hack3rcon and I have been discussing this in relations to 'flooding'.  

He would like a way to move 'solved' threads off the first page of the forum, so they would not be counted against the 5 thread limit, and enable him to post more threads with 'flooding'.  (See Rule 8.)


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Cagey said:


> He would like a way to move 'solved' threads off the first page of the forum, so they would not be counted against the 5 thread limit, and enable him to post more threads with 'flooding'


This looks like a way to get round the "no flooding" rule...5 threads on the first page in a high-traffic forum like "English only" means that someone has to wait only few minutes to be able to post more questions, so no thanks, hack3rcon


----------



## siares

Why not, Paulfromitaly? I must disagree violently.


Paulfromitaly said:


> get round the "no flooding" rule


This is not 'getting around' a rule; if there are less than 5 threads on 1st page, than there is no flooding. If the rule creators have any other principle in mind, such as: _nobody shall be able to post their 6th thread mere 5 minutes after 5th_; than they wrote the rule wrong.

I'll give an example of what is 'getting around a rule' - hack3rcon sends me some money via Paypal and I post his questions under my name.

I am not interested in hack3ron's request either way, I am posting because I read too many CS threads and am allerging to accusations of breaking the rules when people ask for changes.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

siares said:


> This is not 'getting around' a rule


Removing threads from the first page for no reason (since threads are NEVER "solved") only to be able to post more questions is a way to get round the flooding rule, in my opinion.
Once a user has posted a question in the forums, it is no longer their own question, but a topic that will be in the WR forums forever for future reference.
Unless we're talking about a "Yes/No" question, there's no such a thing as a "Solved" thread.
In fact, even after several years, there are people who add a message to old threads to clarify a matter, add further information or explain why the previous replies were misleading


----------



## siares

I can understand that there may be call to leave a thread on first page for all to enjoy for longer time than it takes to solve it.
For any future discussions on the 'solved' button:


Paulfromitaly said:


> since threads are NEVER "solved"





siares said:


> If objections to it are mainly because 'solved' prevents people from adding comments, the buttons could be named:
> - Come enjoy me and comment (solved)
> - Can you please help? (unsolved)


----------

