Whats the deal with digging up threads 10+ years old...

[Skippy SH13]

What's the deal with digging up threads 10+ years old...

I come to the site to check out the LATEST threads, and contribute and I'm finding a slough of the that are from 2003, and 2004. Not funny. In fact, it's kind of annoying. I'm now having to filter through the filtered "new threads responses."


I get that a find in the dirt is a good save... in the forum, it's like detecting a modern cemetery... some things shouldn't be done. LOL I think we should stick with digging up stuff buried in the dirt, not the forums...

If I'm wrong, and this is considered offensive, feel free to ban me for a few days, I'll probably not visit anyway, because I'd rather read new threads... If I get a hankerin' to search old stuff... I've got Google for that.

Skippy

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[G.I.B.]

Ahhh yes, the Entitled Generation.

Everyone must do it the way I want, because I deserve it...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Treasure_Hunter]

Skippy your reading more in my post than what I said. I was posting as mod to those who attack members for reviving old threads in general, not specifically at you. We have members who have been attacked for revising old threads, that is what my post was directed at.

 

[el padron]

I come to the site to check out the LATEST threads, and contribute and I'm finding a slough of the that are from 2003, and 2004. Not funny. In fact, it's kind of annoying. I'm now having to filter through the filtered "new threads responses."


I get that a find in the dirt is a good save... in the forum, it's like detecting a modern cemetery... some things shouldn't be done. LOL I think we should stick with digging up stuff buried in the dirt, not the forums...

If I'm wrong, and this is considered offensive, feel free to ban me for a few days, I'll probably not visit anyway, because I'd rather read new threads... If I get a hankerin' to search old stuff... I've got Google for that.

Skippy

It's amazing how many of the most popular modern metal detectors are so overpriced and cheaply built .

 

[Skippy SH13]

Thanks for the clarification. I wondered, and wanted to be sure.

Skippy your reading more in my post than what I said. I was posting as mod to those who attack members for reviving old threads in general, not specifically at you. We have members who have been attacked for revising old threads, that is what my post was directed at.

 

[Skippy SH13]

It's amazing how many of the most popular modern metal detectors are so overpriced and cheaply built .

Sounds like a new thread.

 

[Skippy SH13]

Ahhh yes, the Entitled Generation.

Everyone must do it the way I want, because I deserve it...

Ahhh, yes, the Passive Aggressive Generation.

I want to say something, but am going to only sort of say it, because you deserve it... and I need a backdoor to escape through..."

------------
Did I get the inflection right? LOL!


-Skippy

 

[G.I.B.]

Ahhh, yes, the Passive Aggressive Generation.

I want to say something, but am going to only sort of say it, because you deserve it... and I need a backdoor to escape through..."

------------
Did I get the inflection right? LOL!


-Skippy

Okay- so who yields? Does everyone use caution so you are not upset by looking at old posts, or do you not look at old posts?

 

[Skippy SH13]

Okay- so who yields? Does everyone use caution so you are not upset by looking at old posts, or do you not look at old posts?

Neither. I generally don't believe that the only resolution between two perspectives is one side "winning." We humans (even the entitled ones, *tongue in cheek*) generally have the capacity to recognize different perspectives when framed properly. It's when we start doing just what you noted (feeling entitled to the belief that our way is the only way) that we believe that someone must "yield" for a resolution to exist.

In short, this isn't a binary "all or nothing" problem. As indicated, T-Net has some tools that I've found to be very useful. Simply because I had barrage of experiences dealing with old threads that I found insanely annoying doesn't mean I didn't work to get it figured out. And I have.

I'm definitely not the kind of person that thinks the only way to view a Donkey is from the end I happen to see. In this case, some folks were fine with the fact that their end of the Donkey was the end that they could put whatever they wanted to into it, and it was consumed... it just happened that in this instance, I was on the back end, where all that consumption was dumping on me.

And BOTH of the view points are correct.

As the responses easily showed, the situation was viewed from multiple perspectives across the board. It was not "a stupid person who thinks the Donkey is an eagle." There were folks who saw the dumping, and folks who enjoyed the front end. All of those perspectives are correct. In my opinion, this is not a situation which requires yielding. A higher path is more easily achieved. In this case, seeing multiple perspectives helped me find the tools necessary to avoid the back end of that donkey! I assure you, that Donkey still has a butt, and someone is going to get dumped on... I'm just now standing to the side saying "uh... that's not where you should stand, buddy."

As a summary, it's really all good now! Situation Resolved. I can thoroughly see the front end of the donkey.

Skippy.

 

[Oregon Viking]

And...as a charter member you can view posts in "real time". It's called live posts.

 

[Pennypacker]

Realistically, quite often on a subject that has already been discussed, it is suggested to people to use the "search function". Sometimes a google search will lead the member in through a side door.

It seems perfectly valid to continue previous a thread, if just for the sake of organization and reduction in redundancy. Sometimes valuable bits of information don't make it into every duplicate thread, especially if there is a lot of them.

It's just one of those things when dealing with the pedestrian nature of these forums.

-On a side note, one thing I am surprised about is how much the site worries about people questioning finds posted by obvious posers. Everybody knows you have to be somewhat civil in the forums, that goes without saying...However the overzealous nature towards protecting said posers from peer scrutiny reflects poorly on the integrity of the site and it's "banner" program.
It stifles confidence and conversation, I can only speak for myself, but I often think twice now about asking a regular question now for fear that it will be interpreted as doubt by a defensive poser, who will most certainly ask for protective moderation.
It would be better if it was handled on a case by case basis, then just ban the poser or the one falsely accusing, whichever the case may be. No need for all the fuss, let the membership entertain themselves in a reasonable fashion. After all we are all here to have little fun.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Realistically, quite often on a subject that has already been discussed, it is suggested to people to use the "search function". Sometimes a google search will lead the member in through a side door.

It seems perfectly valid to continue previous a thread, if just for the sake of organization and reduction in redundancy. Sometimes valuable bits of information don't make it into every duplicate thread, especially if there is a lot of them.

It's just one of those things when dealing with the pedestrian nature of these forums.

-On a side note, one thing I am surprised about is how much the site worries about people questioning finds posted by obvious posers. Everybody knows you have to be somewhat civil in the forums, that goes without saying...However the overzealous nature towards protecting said posers from peer scrutiny reflects poorly on the integrity of the site and it's "banner" program.
It stifles confidence and conversation, I can only speak for myself, but I often think twice now about asking a regular question now for fear that it will be interpreted as doubt by a defensive poser, who will most certainly ask for protective moderation.
It would be better if it was handled on a case by case basis, then just ban the poser or the one falsely accusing, whichever the case may be. No need for all the fuss, let the membership entertain themselves in a reasonable fashion. After all we are all here to have little fun.

Pennypacker, our rules are not open for debate or discussion in open forum.

THERE WILL BE NO MEMBERS ENTERTAINING THEIR SELVES IN ANY FASHION AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER MEMBERS.

Every member who posts here has agreed to our rules by posting here......

"By using this site, you agree you have read, understand, and will abide by the following terms and conditions...."

"Occasionally a member may have doubts about the authenticity of an item posted by another member. Here are a few things to keep in mind:

1. It is NEVER appropriate or permissible, regardless of proof, to state or suggest in an open forum that another member's find may not be genuine— unless, of course, he has raised that possibility himself, or there is an obvious issue that cannot be disputed or ignored (for example, if the word "COPY" is clearly stamped on a coin).

2. It is NEVER appropriate or permissible to suggest that a member may not actually have found the item which he has posted as a find.

3. Members are free to express such opinions to one another in private messages, but should NOT continue to do so if those messages are unwelcome.

4. Do NOT report doubts, suspicions, possibilities, or rumors to moderators or the administrator. Any formal report or complaint should be accompanied by full and absolute proof from independent, authoritative sources that the item is not, and cannot be, genuine.

Failure to follow these guidelines may result in censure, loss of privileges &/or access to certain forums, or outright banning from TreasureNet.

All finds posted are presumed to be genuine, and those who post them are to be respected."


"Help keep the atmosphere at TreasureNet fun! Sniping, name calling, denigration and other generally negative or abusive actions are grounds for moderation. In extreme cases grounds for banning!"


"Don't attack, provoke, insult, or deliberately offend anyone."
"Keep the discussion civil, respectful and on topic."


"Users may disagree with the decisions or actions of the moderators and/or administrators, however, disagreements, criticism and the like are not to be aired within the forums. Please feel free to PM the person directly rather than air your dirty laundry in public."

 

[Tnmountains]

Treasure Hunter is just quoting the rules Penny. Nothing more or less. There are always people who think they are much wiser. The rules have worked for a long time and are easy to follow. If we did not have them we would have people attacking others. People are brave behind keyboards.
We archive material so members can research the items on the sites servers.

 

[Tnmountains]

As a summary, it's really all good now! Situation Resolved. I can thoroughly see the front end of the donkey.

Skippy.

Good we will consider this thread finished. It is in the wrong section to begin with and Treasurenet is not changing its search features .
Have a great weekend.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Thread is locked....

 

[jeff of pa]

Google search any Subject.
odds are it will lead to TreasureNet

and odds are also Good if you click the link, your not gonna see this past weeks posts

If the person doesn't look at the date,
or to see if the member is even active,
but responds, the thread will pop to the top.

as said earlier this is not a rule breaker.

Attacking Members is.

No Skippy ! your opening post isn't against the rules either .
no rule against opinions as long as they are not directed at a member.

General Discussion may have been a more appropriate spot though,
unless you dug these thoughts up with your detector