[Island Drive]

Originally Posted by judochoke

I have played for 13 months, every day for at least 2 hours. started with no natural talent at all, so I have put in some work. will keep chipping away. thanks for the advices.

Quote Earl Strickland, and he Knows how to play golf.

"Pool is waaaaaaaaaay more difficult''

[FranCrimi]

This thread is a year old.

[Island Drive]

Originally Posted by FranCrimi

This thread is a year old.

Thx for reminding me about being a yr older, just had another BD in July . Mornin' Fran....

[BC21]

Originally Posted by FranCrimi

This thread is a year old.

Many readers scroll through the threads until a certain topic catches their eye. I know I have. There's a lot of missed information and hidden gems that can be found. Unless you read every forum thread every day, threads will inevitably slip by without you ever seeing them.

[evergruven]

Originally Posted by BC21

Many readers scroll through the threads until a certain topic catches their eye. I know I have. There's a lot of missed information and hidden gems that can be found. Unless you read every forum thread every day, threads will inevitably slip by without you ever seeing them.

so true..I may/may not bump an oldie, but there is so much good stuff in the archives.

[BC21]

Originally Posted by evergruven

so true..I may/may not bump an oldie, but there is so much good stuff in the archives.

Exactly. And if you find something that you'd like to comment on or reply to...do it. It's not like old threads are written in stone for reading purposes only, the final words being the end all with no additional comments or replies allowed. Well....there are some exceptions, like closed threads. Other than those, any thread is subject to be bumped up or revived at anytime.

[FranCrimi]

I'm not saying you shouldn't revive an old thread. I'm saying that who ever revives it should give everyone the courtesy of pointing out it's age. How about doing that when reviving old threads?

[DrCue'sProtege]

Originally Posted by FranCrimi

I'm not saying you shouldn't revive an old thread. I'm saying that who ever revives it should give everyone the courtesy of pointing out it's age. How about doing that when reviving old threads?

Fran,

It was Scott Lee that bumped this thread.

I've bumped a few lately myself.

Like BC21 says, sometimes you scroll through old threads until something catches your eye.

r/DCP

[Patrick Johnson]

Originally Posted by FranCrimi

I'm saying that who ever revives it should give everyone the courtesy of pointing out it's age. How about doing that when reviving old threads?

Good idea - thanks for pointing it out for us. I usually miss that fact.

pj
chgo

[BC21]

Originally Posted by FranCrimi

I'm not saying you shouldn't revive an old thread. I'm saying that who ever revives it should give everyone the courtesy of pointing out it's age. How about doing that when reviving old threads?

That's a good idea. A preface, like...."I know this thread is over a year old, but.....". It's either that or start a new thread on the same topic, and that always brings the classic reply of, "This has already been covered in another thread months ago." It's the forum's own little "catch 22".

Not everyone reads every forum thread every day, so there's always going to be the occasional reviving of an old thread or someone starting a new thread on a subject already covered by an old thread. And there will always be those who reply with something like, "There is already a thread on this subject, use the search option and find it." or, "This thread is three years old.". None of that matters, because what's old to you or me might be new to someone that has never seen it.

So maybe every thread should start with an apologetic comment like, "I apologize if this has already been covered in an older thread." Or, "Sorry to revive this old thread, but I just found it in the archives." This would keep everyone on the same page.

[BC21]

Originally Posted by DrCue'sProtege

It was Scott Lee that bumped this thread.


r/DCP

Lol....that's ok then. He was plugging the PBIA and the importance of professional instruction.

Here's the big question, now that this thread is back in tge limelight.... Has judochoke's 9ball skills improved over the last year??!!

[FranCrimi]

Originally Posted by BC21

That's a good idea. A preface, like...."I know this thread is over a year old, but.....". It's either that or start a new thread on the same topic, and that always brings the classic reply of, "This has already been covered in another thread months ago." It's the forum's own little "catch 22".

Not everyone reads every forum thread every day, so there's always going to be the occasional reviving of an old thread or someone starting a new thread on a subject already covered by an old thread. And there will always be those who reply with something like, "There is already a thread on this subject, use the search option and find it." or, "This thread is three years old.". None of that matters, because what's old to you or me might be new to someone that has never seen it.

So maybe every thread should start with an apologetic comment like, "I apologize if this has already been covered in an older thread." Or, "Sorry to revive this old thread, but I just found it in the archives." This would keep everyone on the same page.

So then are you suggesting that it's better that people don't know when the thread originally started?

I much prefer the truth over deception. If I see an old thread, I'll be happy to point out it's original date and then people can decide for themselves what to do.

[BC21]

Originally Posted by FranCrimi

So then are you suggesting that it's better that people don't know when the thread originally started?

I much prefer the truth over deception. If I see an old thread, I'll be happy to point out it's original date and then people can decide for themselves what to do.

I agree. But I wouldn't call it deception. I have sometimes replied to a post in a thread that has been revived/bumped back up. Then I notice that it's a very old thread. There is no deception there, it's called lack of oversight, or not paying attention.

The dates are right there for everyone to see, so it's not like anyone is trying to deceive anybody. I know I've been quilty of reading an old thread at least once, maybe something I missed when it was first posted, and after reading for a half hour or so I'll reply or quote someone without paying attention to the dates of all the other comments until after I've already posted my comment. It happens. There is no "truth or deception" playing out. It's simply a new comment in an old thread, and people can either engage or ignore the comment. No big deal.

[FranCrimi]

Originally Posted by BC21

I agree. But I wouldn't call it deception. I have sometimes replied to a post in a thread that has been revived/bumped back up. Then I notice that it's a very old thread. There is no deception there, it's called lack of oversight, or not paying attention.

The dates are right there for everyone to see, so it's not like anyone is trying to deceive anybody. I know I've been quilty of reading an old thread at least once, maybe something I missed when it was first posted, and after reading for a half hour or so I'll reply or quote someone without paying attention to the dates of all the other comments until after I've already posted my comment. It happens. There is no "truth or deception" playing out. It's simply a new comment in an old thread, and people can either engage or ignore the comment. No big deal.

By not telling the age of the thread, you're trying to control the responses to it. It's a passive aggressive form of deception. Just put the truth out there and let them decide for themselves.

[BC21]

Originally Posted by FranCrimi

By not telling the age of the thread, you're trying to control the responses to it. It's a passive aggressive form of deception. Just put the truth out there and let them decide for themselves.

Lol. Ok. I guess I don't understand.

Let's say I go browsing through the archives and stumble upon an old thread that Bob Jewett started 5 years ago, before I joined AZ. I would come here occasionally then and read some stuff, but I could've easily missed tons of threads. So let's say one title grabs my attention and I start reading. Then I find a comment that resonates with me and I decide to quote it with a thumbs up reply saying something like, "Wow! I wish I had read this years ago!" And I don't give any preface or warning or apology for bringing up or reviving/bumping the vintage thread. How is this dishonest? Who would I be trying to deceive, or manipulate, or control as far as responses go. What do readers or other az members have to "decide"?

Anyone can easily see the dates on previous comments and immediately know how old a thread is. I understand it's easy to overlook because we actually have to pay attention. Like I said, I've replied to an old bumped up thread without paying attention to the fact that it was an older thread. But it wouldn't have made a difference in my reply. I didn't see it as someone bumping the thread with some dastardly plot to deceive or fool other posters in order to control their comments. That doesn't even make sense to me.

Anyway, this particular thread was bumped by an instructor more or less promoting the value of paid instruction. I didn't see his resurrection of the thread as anything other than a promotional opportunity, certainly not something I would call deception or dishonesty. But it does make me wonder.....Has the op improved his 9ball game over the last year? Or should he take Scott Lee's advice and get professional instruction?