# New Members Posting In Old Threads



## Dave Dolson

What is it with the several new members posting in old threads? Most of the posts by new members are made without context, as if they are carrying on a conversation with previous thread-posters. Some of our more seasoned members gently comment that the thread is dead and the issues have long been overtaken by events (e.g., high schoolers in 2006 but probably now Dads themselves), but the hints seem to be ignored and the new member(s) keeps right on making inane comments in other old threads.

It appears they are merely trying to increase their post count - they certainly are not adding anything to the forum. We've all made that mistake, I suspect, but quickly recover - and often apologize for the oversight. I think the mods should take more direct action in these cases. A soft comment at first, then issue a warning or whatever the admin provides for such abuse - and I see repeated posts of this nature as an abuse. DAVE


----------



## Grumps

Old news Dave. It's the "Recommended Reading" function of the site that culls old threads from the netherworld and suggests them for members. Those who've been around have figured it out. Those new just simply haven't paid attention to the timeline and follow the recommendations accordingly. Thus age old threads are brought back to life. It's been brought to the attention of the forum owner and they do not wish to abrogate the function.


----------



## milandro

I think this is a problem originated with the forum's " Recommended for you" feature.

This is based on one's search behavior and if one has none or very little it is rather random. It fishes out things from the past and people get the " recommendation " without checking too much about what they are answering to and especially to whom

I started a thread about it

https://www.saxontheweb.net/threads...posts-on-ancient-threads.379721/#post-4229449


----------



## nvilletele

Yeah, I tend to agree. However, there are also occasionally the clueless newbies who don't look at the dates of the prior discussions and are not necessarily just trying to drive up their post count to get selling privileges, etc. Most of us were that person at one time, and some of us (myself?) still perhaps are. But most of us do eventually learn. 

And I have read some interesting threads that I might not otherwise have seen.

But yes, you are right. I have felt the same when seeing a lot of such posts resurrecting zombie threads, especially when they seek to give advice to a kid who is likely a parent by now.


----------



## swperry1

Yeah, I don’t think it’s people trying to inflate their post counts, especially since most of the posts are on topic but have just revived an old thread. I’ve done it a few times not realizing no one had commented in several years. 

The recommended reading is a great idea...perhaps there’s a way to modify it to only recommend threads with recent activity?


----------



## samdb

There's also the fact that people often get castigated for asking a question that has had a prior thread. If you take the idea seriously that you shouldn't ask a question that has been asked before, then it makes some sense to comment on older relevant threads.

It's not unique here, either. I've had people respond on Twitter to things I wrote years ago. As long as there's an algorithmic, rather than chronological, presentation, people will find (and probably comment on) older posts.


----------



## hnthere

It's easy to overlook those dates. A warning that a thread is more than x months old would be nice when typing a response. It can be ignored when it's intentional.


----------



## Pete Thomas

Dave Dolson said:


> as if they are carrying on a conversation with previous thread-posters.


Do you mean this kind of thing, where the OP is long gone and the answer looks like the typical new member trying to get their post count up with a one word response? (against the rules for obvious reasons)









Reed Strength for First Year of Band


If bandmommy is right, and the director is a French horn player, that explains everything. The only French horn player I ever liked played trombone in band... OK, joke over. I don't get it. Why on earth would a band director be insulted that a private teacher contacted him or her? When I...




www.saxontheweb.net







Tom Heimer said:


> Rico #2s.


----------



## LostConn

hnthere said:


> It's easy to overlook those dates. A warning that a thread is more than x months old would be nice when typing a response. It can be ignored when it's intentional.


Something like that would be easy to implement in the forum software, but would not necessarily be in the interest of the owners of the forum. Anything that drives up user "engagement" with the site (clicks and views), including the promotion of pointless replies to ancient queries, is theoretically a potential financial benefit to the forum. Since I doubt that anyone here is going to quit SOTW in disgust because of too many zombie threads, there will remain a bit of a conflict of interest between the members and the owners.


----------



## J-Moen

I feel like most of the responses here are missing the real point. We aren't talking about the occasional random user accidentally reviving a thread revival due to the software - which may have happened a lot just after the upgrade, but its pretty infrequent now.

There are specific users ONLY responding to old threads and ignoring any comments about irrelevant posts or reviving threads.



Pete Thomas said:


> Do you mean this kind of thing, where the OP is long gone and the answer looks like the typical new member trying to get their post count up with a one word response? (against the rules for obvious reasons)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reed Strength for First Year of Band
> 
> 
> If bandmommy is right, and the director is a French horn player, that explains everything. The only French horn player I ever liked played trombone in band... OK, joke over. I don't get it. Why on earth would a band director be insulted that a private teacher contacted him or her? When I...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.saxontheweb.net


So yes, This is what I was thinking of when I saw this post.


----------



## Sigmund451

J-Moen said:


> There are specific users ONLY responding to old threads and ignoring any comments about irrelevant posts or reviving threads.


Their reply: "I see dead people"


----------



## JoAnnPeeler

FYI -- I'm reading this thread. (My post count is severely lacking.)


----------



## Dave Dolson

Yes, I get all the responses, and I've seen a few of you trying to gently tell the one new member (mentioned above) that his particular reply was untimely. Yet, he kept right on doing it. Like I said, most of us have probably been guilty of missing the long-ago date of a last-post, but this guy has carried it to extremes.

I came across yet another new poster adding nothing to an old thread just today. That prompted my post. I agree with milandro and Grumps that the likely cause is the RECOMMENDED FOR YOU feature. 

One time is understandable . . . several times after a gentle reminder is annoying. DAVE


----------



## Pete Thomas

Dave Dolson said:


> RECOMMENDED FOR YOU


I agree this is causing problems, and have mentioned it to our main admin @VSadmin. However they may be tied in to "corporate" so I don't imagine there is much chance of them changing their corporate policy pureluy because it is causing problems here.  But we keep our fingers crossed.🙏


Dave Dolson said:


> One time is understandable . . . several times after a gentle reminder is annoying. DAVE


I agree.


----------



## Arundo Donax

hnthere said:


> It's easy to overlook those dates. A warning that a thread is more than x months old would be nice when typing a response. It can be ignored when it's intentional.


That's what I was thinking.

For us denizens, our first clue that a thread is old is we see it contains postings by names we either don't recognize or by those we know are from the past. An innocent new poster does not have that clue, so a popup notification would help.

At least for me, these recent followups to old threads almost became a running gag. A few of those threads were interesting.


----------



## 14470

Dave Dolson said:


> What is it with the several new members posting in old threads? Most of the posts by new members are made without context, as if they are carrying on a conversation with previous thread-posters. Some of our more seasoned members gently comment that the thread is dead and the issues have long been overtaken by events (e.g., high schoolers in 2006 but probably now Dads themselves), but the hints seem to be ignored and the new member(s) keeps right on making inane comments in other old threads.
> 
> It appears they are merely trying to increase their post count - they certainly are not adding anything to the forum. We've all made that mistake, I suspect, but quickly recover - and often apologize for the oversight. I think the mods should take more direct action in these cases. A soft comment at first, then issue a warning or whatever the admin provides for such abuse - and I see repeated posts of this nature as an abuse. DAVE


I would just ignore. As with so much other heavy-handed policing, it is unnecessary and misguided. And, some of these individuals who post in old trhreads may simply have used the search function. Finally, they might be too new to be aware of the short life-/attention span of old treads of which some are actually great.


----------



## 1saxman

I feel like the older threads contained more basic questions/answers that the longer-term members now take for granted. Newer members may want to talk about the old themes - I don't see the problem in responding to an old thread as long as the information could conceivably be useful to the newer, less-experienced user. And sometimes, its just nice to re-hash older answers that perhaps are not the latest thinking. This really has nothing to do with the OP of the older post - its so everyone can see things we were talking about years ago that new sax players probably don't know any more than we did. 
I think you all need to come to grips with the fact that use of the 'search function' in forums is a totally imaginary thing. Nobody has ever done it and nobody ever will. On most forums it doesn't even work unless you're a contributing member with a certain post count. Don't ask me if it works here because I wouldn't know!
Beyond that there seems to be a psychotic compulsion on all forums to end responding to old threads, and there doesn't seem to be a good reason for it.


----------



## B Flat

This topic has been covered in the past, please do a search in future rather than start a new thread on topics already covered.

sorry, couldn’t help myself.


----------



## soybean

hnthere said:


> It's easy to overlook those dates. A warning that a thread is more than x months old would be nice when typing a response. It can be ignored when it's intentional.


I agree. the date should be in larger font size and right at the top of the text box. The idea of a warning is also a good one. Perhaps anything older than one year?


----------



## wanderso

When I go to this site I immediately click on the NEW button in upper right without even looking at the titles of posts the site is recommending. When I'm done with the new posts, I click Mark All As Read at the top of the page.
Of course that will bring up a zombie thread if someone freshly contributes to it...


----------



## Pete Kelly

As a relative newbie myself it took me a while to figure out to look at the date stamps. AND I really like fact that older posts stay here for us to read, like an archeological dig with surprising tidbits.


----------



## Serafino

There are two different situations being discussed here.

Members do this in general, now and then, and it's not a problem. Someone soon points out that the OP is in a retirement home by now and then depending on the situation Milandro will say it's good to keep new information in the same old topics and we all hungrily go back to trawling for the next interesting thread from which to get a dopamine hit.

One person is currently doing it several times a day and pretending not to notice the replies bringing the issue to his attention. This looks like flouting the forum rules but it's just one guy and he seems to think that because his eyes are closed no one can see him, and that does indeed make it fairly entertaining.


----------



## Fader

It hurts no one.


----------



## Dave Dunn

Dave Dolson said:


> What is it with the several new members posting in old threads? Most of the posts by new members are made without context, as if they are carrying on a conversation with previous thread-posters. Some of our more seasoned members gently comment that the thread is dead and the issues have long been overtaken by events (e.g., high schoolers in 2006 but probably now Dads themselves), but the hints seem to be ignored and the new member(s) keeps right on making inane comments in other old threads.
> 
> It appears they are merely trying to increase their post count - they certainly are not adding anything to the forum. We've all made that mistake, I suspect, but quickly recover - and often apologize for the oversight. I think the mods should take more direct action in these cases. A soft comment at first, then issue a warning or whatever the admin provides for such abuse - and I see repeated posts of this nature as an abuse. DAVE


And what happens when they ask a question?
Someone says "this question has been asked before, use the search function, here's the links to a bunch of old threads." :/
So what do you want? Repeated questions, or people reading old threads? It seems like what you want is no new members.

Edit - I'll leave my comment as is, but I'd like to point out that when I wrote it I was still in my irritable, pre-coffee morning mode. 😎


----------



## Dave Dolson

Dave Dunn: I thought I set out my "wants" in my two posts. Most of the posts by new members responding to zombie-threads that got my goat were inane comments that added nothing to the old discussions (see Pete Thomas' comments above). 

As far as Fader's comment that it hurts no one, no it doesn't. It is just annoying when the new poster does it over and over again after a gentle hint that just maybe he should be mindful of the age of the thread. Once or twice is understandable - doing it repeatedly and making little sense when he does it is annoying.


----------



## Arundo Donax

Well, I think it's likely we're being played and someone is having a good laugh. Maybe.

Before getting to that, I'll state this: first, I don't think most people here mind if an occasional old thread is revived. Sometimes the thread is truly interesting. Second, I don't think _too_ many people mind if the Search function is not used or ignored, even for common questions. I actually am _thrilled _when someone asks "why is a saxophone a transposing instrument" or similar. It's my favorite question. The many ways different people try to explain this is fascinating, revealing, and instructive.

With this latest series of old thread revivals, what I see happening is that an old but interesting thread will be revived, let's say it has to do with a band director being dictatorial, there will have been dozens of replies - all in 2007, for example, and then our new SOTW member, let's call him Tom, will reply 14 years later with sage advice to the person having the problem. Having been informed of this tardy response, the exact same thing keeps happening with other threads. So that's what I see happening. I truly don't care, it's sometimes amusing, but I think we could be the object of a joke as well.


----------



## sniklefriz

As a new member, I almost posted some replies on ancient threads too. I stopped myself after noticing the dates.

However, if I have a pertinent question related to the thread, shouldn't I post on the thread, even if outdated? Or should I start a completely new thread?

Sorry, us newbs don't know all the proper protocols, but hopefully will learn.


----------



## Serafino

sniklefriz said:


> However, if I have a pertinent question related to the thread, shouldn't I post on the thread, even if outdated? Or should I start a completely new thread?


New information pertinent to a thread, no matter how old, goes well there according to many. A new question is best in a new thread. A slight variant or clarification on the original question of an old thread? Wobbler--you'll likely get called out no matter which way you go, but then the conversation will likely continue on from there so everyone gets their fun in. If the answers you expect seem like a genuine continuation of the original topic then putting your question there will please those who like to see information grouped conveniently. These answers will not satisfy everyone, and I am far from being an expert on this forum's culture. FWIW, YMMV, TANSTAAFL.


----------



## milandro

absolutely, there is a serious difference in posting some comment to a specific advise sought by someone 20 years ago or to a general thread on the Selmer Mark VI or to a tech's question or anything that is still actual.

If you answer a " get together" from one year ago this is already not relevant but a thread on embouchure stated 25 years ago is still relevant today.



Dave Dunn said:


> And what happens when they ask a question?
> Someone says "this question has been asked before, use the search function, here's the links to a bunch of old threads." :/
> So what do you want? Repeated questions, or people reading old threads? It seems like what you want is no new members.
> 
> Edit - I'll leave my comment as is, but I'd like to point out that when I wrote it I was still in my irritable, pre-coffee morning mode. ?


The question thing is very easy, check the forum out BEFORE you post, once it has been asked it just makes it that more difficult to post.

The answer to most questions are there already and there is nothing wrong in continuing an old thread as long as the question is still relevant today.


----------



## milandro

Pete Kelly said:


> As a relative newbie myself it took me a while to figure out to look at the date stamps. AND I really like fact that older posts stay here for us to read, like an archeological dig with surprising tidbits.


No, it isn't only a reference that the old posts are useful for,

we are continuing a thread on late Super 20s and every time there is new information we add there, this is the way old threads stay alive. The thread started in 2012









Late King Super 20 and model 2416, new information


So, I ended up buying this beauty , in great shape, it plays as well as my Eastake. Absolutely no tuning issues. Same ballsy voice get warm and soft at will. But I have to say the Eastlake has a different " vibe" , which I prefer. Great case (better than the one of earlier models) perfect fit...




www.saxontheweb.net





THIS is the way to keep threads alive

NOT by answering someone who asked 20 years ago about a mouthpiece for his horn ( and even then, if you make this a general thing, may be useful , it's the answering of a particular post by someone who stayed 3 days on the forum and never returned that makes no sense!


----------



## cliveyx

The real cynical suggestion would be that the forum itself is becoming a bit of a Zombie and that perhaps it's a bit of a traffic generator put in place to divert attention from and to compensate the lack of quality content.
Nothing unique there


----------



## milandro

well, I found and find reasons to read and post every day for a real long time ( although less than you do) mileage varies, obviously

this forum is still relevant, to me, the only way to keep it relevant is to keep it clean and efficient as much as possible.


----------



## cliveyx

@milandro . The day that you stopped posting here would be a very sad day indeedy.


----------



## Sigmund451

I even made the mistake with the software change. The new forum has a lot of visual noise. It is easy to miss that little date stamp on posts.

Since vadmin wont change it perhaps when people sign up as new it can be called to their attention that there are date stamps and that Recommended Reading has a tendency to dig up very old posts. Put something like "PLEASE READ DATE STAMPS BEFORE RESPONDING TO THREADS".

Just a thought.


----------



## milandro

cheers @cliveyx

@Sigmund451

it is really NOT only a matter of time stamp, but of relevance.


----------



## Sigmund451

True, but I think most answer because the believe it is current. Most users would not suggest a student mouthpiece to someone who asked 15 years ago. I would hope they would consider it not relevant.


----------



## milandro

that's what I would hope too, but if one is posting on something like this (albeit directed to a member who wasn't seen in over 4 months on line) it may be relevant although the thread is from 2015









Mythology about Keilwerth and rolled tone holes.


I am a friend of Peter Ponzol's and it seems that some of the same questions about the origin of JK rolled tone holes keep popping up again and again, so here are some comments about that that might put some erroneous information to rest and help out instrument history buffs, as well. Ever...




www.saxontheweb.net





Also, it would be nice if people would take at least some time to read the posts (I am not saying the whole thread but at least the previous things) often I see people giving the same answer given before ( and never acknowledging that ) which shows they haven't read what it is all about.


----------



## Arundo Donax

In addition, if someone doesn’t want to read the entire thread, they could at least read the most recent posts and thereby possibly avoid giving the same advice. Otherwise, it suggests they don’t fully understand the thread.


----------



## 134520

Yeah, I've seen some fairly rude people on here telling newbies "don't ask stupid questions, it's been asked before," whilst simultaneously chastising them for posting on an old thread that they might not have seen the date to. The forum isn't exactly self-explanatory and might take some time to get used to, so maybe the oldheads can get off their high horse every once in a while and help a new member?


----------



## Pete Thomas

SaxyJew said:


> Yeah, I've seen some fairly rude people on here telling newbies "don't ask stupid questions, it's been asked before,"


However that isn't what this thread is about. This thread is not about asking questions, whether to post a new thread or ask in an existing thread (which is what people sometimes suggest, though as far as I can see they/we do it very politely) If someone is rude, please report hem.

This thread is about a different thing - ie pointless and irrelevant replies in very old threads, not asking questions.

Generally this type of reply is done to artificially boost a post count, sometimes for commercial advertsing and sometimes just to troll or annoy people.

You are very new here - a hearty welcome to SOTW.


----------



## 134520

Pete Thomas said:


> You are very new here - a hearty welcome to SOTW.


Thank you! I return after a few years hiatus due to a very rude encounter with someone I still see posting. I've admired from afar for some time. Glad to be back.


----------



## milandro

@SaxyJew

I , for one, have always politely shown the way to newcomers , went to great lengths to explain why and how and show them how the system works of looking up threads (by providing a selection of thread).


----------



## JL

I've certainly inadvertently replied to a zombie thread when it comes up in the "new" or "recommended" categories on here, initially not realizing how old the thread is. These threads often come up not at the beginning of the thread, but at one of the latest posts (with a current date) so it is easy to miss how old it is.

Anyway, I see two sides to this. Even if the thread is old, if the new posts add something of value, or bring up the topic again to expand on it, or just out of interest for those who may not have seen the original, that doesn't seem like a problem at all. OTOH, if you are directly answering a question posed 10 years ago by someone who is probably long gone from the forum (like the "Rico #2s" response that Pete mentioned), it makes no sense at all.

That said, it doesn't seem like a huge issue unless it gets to be a very common occurrence.


----------



## Grumps

SaxyJew said:


> Yeah, I've seen some fairly rude people on here telling newbies "don't ask stupid questions..."


I'm certain no one ever quite put it that way.



SaxyJew said:


> I return after a few years hiatus due to a very rude encounter with someone I still see posting.


Perhaps it was your penchant for hyperbole that contributed to prior negative experiences.


----------



## 134520

Grumps said:


> I'm certain no one ever quite put it that way.
> 
> Perhaps it was your penchant for hyperbole that contributed to prior negative experiences.


Thanks for proving my point, *******.


----------



## lydian

Zombie thread king, Tom Heimer , has 37 posts at the moment, all but 2 of which are to zombie threads. He has also been made aware of this fact many, many times. Looking at his signature, he's clearly spamming to sell his book or just trying to get his post count up.


----------



## Minnesota

IMHO the problem isn't the resurfacing of old threads by intentional or unintentional means. It's the mere fact users here need all kinds of training to fit into the culture/environment that exists on SOTW. It would be a lot more helpful for savvy and veteran users if filters were available to customize a given reading list. Drives me bananas that I have to skim past threads that aren't relevant to my interests. A user should be able to ignore threads, users, and key words as well as entire forums or sub forums. 

The forum software and its updates must have been created when Telnet BBS lists were all the rage.


----------



## Grumps

SaxyJew said:


> Thanks for proving my point...


That you're responsible for your own negative experiences on the site? No, that was my point.

See ya in another five years then?


----------



## JL

Minnesota said:


> IMHO the problem isn't the resurfacing of old threads by intentional or unintentional means. It's the mere fact users here need all kinds of training to fit into the culture/environment that exists on SOTW. It would be a lot more helpful for savvy and veteran users if filters were available to customize a given reading list. Drives me bananas that I have to skim past threads that aren't relevant to my interests. A user should be able to ignore threads, users, and key words as well as entire forums or sub forums.


You might be making a good point with regard to the format here, if I am understanding what you're saying. But I don't see that users need 'all kinds of training' to fit in or get their questions answered. There is a beginner's sub forum. If you click on that series of horizontal lines next to your avatar (upper right side of the screen), all the sub forums will be listed by topic. So it is possible to pick and choose among various topics.

Assuming I haven't misinterpreted your statement.


----------



## Roundmidnite

The newbies get in trouble if they post something that's alrady been covered ad nauseum in earlier threads or if they post on earlier ones. They can't win! Leave the young grasshoppers alone!


----------



## Gendreauj

Dave Dunn said:


> And what happens when they ask a question?
> Someone says "this question has been asked before, use the search function, here's the links to a bunch of old threads." :/
> So what do you want? Repeated questions, or people reading old threads? It seems like what you want is no new members.
> 
> Edit - I'll leave my comment as is, but I'd like to point out that when I wrote it I was still in my irritable, pre-coffee morning mode. 😎


Thanks for your comments.


----------



## BradWit

Coming back to the forum after the big redesign, I personally have a harder time navigating it to see the new posts that are relevant to my interests, so I've taken to using the "new" feed to keep track of everything that's come up since I last visited. It does mean that I scroll a fair bit around the marketplace posts and might only find 4 or so topics to look into per 5 pages of threads, but it ensures that I'm paying attention to the new stuff. That said, it does grate a bit to see an old thread put onto that feed from a three word comment. 

As far as newbies needing to get used to a specific kind of culture or etiquette, I kinda understand the sentiment. Forums like this aren't exactly popular places on the internet anymore, and people who are regulars here deal with a pretty different part of the world compared to a lot of other websites. I don't consider it a steep learning curve, but I do think one exists.


----------



## Arundo Donax

BradWit said:


> ...
> Forums like this aren't exactly popular places on the internet anymore...


Especially among younger folk. I belong to a few photography and other forums and a lament there among the regulars is that the site is becoming geriatric. Even though young people have an interest in the hobby, they don't join the forums. It was enlightening when a younger person (~20's) who had joined, then replied in a posting that such forums as these are perceived as archaic and awkward to use.


----------



## Serafino

Arundo Donax said:


> It was enlightening when a younger person (~20's) who had joined, then replied in a posting that such forums as these are perceived as archaic and awkward to use.


Some day I will discover the sekrit way in which social media is better geared toward the organization, preservation, and finding of knowledge. So far I am entirely unconvinced.


----------



## leycroft

Looks like a " storm in a teacup" to me . I have commented on old threads a couple , to see what the outcome was not for any other reason .


----------



## Minnesota

JL said:


> You might be making a good point with regard to the format here, if I am understanding what you're saying. But I don't see that users need 'all kinds of training' to fit in or get their questions answered. There is a beginner's sub forum. If you click on that series of horizontal lines next to your avatar (upper right side of the screen), all the sub forums will be listed by topic. So it is possible to pick and choose among various topics.
> 
> Assuming I haven't misinterpreted your statement.


I mean absolutely no disrespect - but I don't know if I should laugh or cry.


----------



## Arundo Donax

Serafino said:


> Some day I will discover the sekrit way in which social media is better geared toward the organization, preservation, and finding of knowledge. So far I am entirely unconvinced.


Well, I agree. It was just surprising when the younger folk gave us feedback that our discussion forum (which was structured and organized nearly identically to the old SOTW) was awkward.

Here, if I wanted to read about Yamaha saxes, or the Beginner forums, or learn about Sax history or repair, it was very straightforward to go to that forum and quickly scan through all the threads. Having a Reddit or other social media format (which I admittedly know little about) doesn't appear better organized. It's more interactive, more responsive, maybe. Yet, that's what they had come to expect and prefer.


----------



## Kirk B

Serafino said:


> Some day I will discover the sekrit way in which social media is better geared toward the organization, preservation, and finding of knowledge. So far I am entirely unconvinced.


Aw c'mon. You mean you don't like political rants, video recipes, and cat pictures?


----------



## Tryptykon

Roundmidnite said:


> The newbies get in trouble if they post something that's alrady been covered ad nauseum in earlier threads or if they post on earlier ones. They can't win! Leave the young grasshoppers alone!


----------



## Gendreauj

Very appropriate. Love it


----------



## Mk-Hmmr

lydian said:


> just trying to get his post count up


Reading these 3 pages, I have to ask: the concept of "getting more post count" has been mentioned a few times. Why would anyone want to do that? How does it benefit the person who has more posts? Is it because of a points system? What does the number of points give access to?

Or is it like


----------



## Dr G

Mk-Hmmr said:


> Reading these 3 pages, I have to ask: the concept of "getting more post count" has been mentioned a few times. Why would anyone want to do that?


For a new member that comes to SotW to buy, sell, trade, dump, or flip horns for fun and profit, the rules for access to the Classifieds (former aka Marketplace) require 6 months membership and 50 relevant posts.









IMPORTANT - *** RULES - GENERAL POSTING, CLASSIFIED...


[Edited Sept 3 2021 for clarification] These rules are specific to the SOTW forums and are in addition to the Verticalscope Terms of Use. These have now been reformatted for clarity. There are no new rules although some rules previously only written elsewhere are now included so all rules are...




www.saxontheweb.net


----------



## milandro

it is not a matter of mind control it's a matter of optimizing the resources that we have, nobody says don't post on something written before, but if you want ( ideally after reading the threads) post in a place where there is already that king of topic.

Periodically people discover that the saxophone is a transposing instrument. We have many threads about this from whichever angle you want. Reading those threads and continuing them helps keeping information in the same place so that when someone else comes it is there to wait for him or her to read.

Don't understand? Fine, continue on one of the threads!

I understand the wish to stand and be counted but there are so many ways to do tha, continuing old threads makes keeping the old threads useful.

If every generation of humans had to learn how to boil water ...

There a re a few thread on this ( understatement is my middelname) opening another one is not going to help anyone









Transposing instruments?


I recently helped another member with how to transpose for his instrument, and it resulted in me thinking about something that I recently experienced. A few years ago, I accompanied an alto saxophonist in Dressel's Partita. I thought it was quite beautiful music during our practice sessions...




www.saxontheweb.net













Why are saxes transposing instruments?


A clarinet is a "transposing" instrument. A saxophone is NOT. Play low Ab on a clarinet and then press the register key. If you don't move your finger position, you will play an Eb.




www.saxontheweb.net













Why Eb and Bb?


Why are the soprano and tenor and bass saxes pitched in the key of Bb? Why are the altos and baritones and contrabasses pitched in the key of Eb? For that matter, why are clarinets and trumpets in Bb? Why are the flute, oboe, et al in C? Horn and cor anglais in F? Anybody know why and how...




www.saxontheweb.net













Transposing - band instruments vs alto sax


I'm still trying to figure out exactly how to phrase the question - here goes: If the band (keyboard, bass etc which are all C instruments) are playing a song in the key of G, it means that they play one sharp (the F). How does this relate to the alto - I'm therefore in the key of D and have 2...




www.saxontheweb.net













Transposition, Completely Confused?


I started playing piano years ago and was taught theory on that, but im completely baffled by transposition on the Eb Alto sax, If I play a C on the sax its actually Eb, which makes no sense to me at all, couldn't I just call that Note Eb instead of C? Would it be wrong to memorize my...




www.saxontheweb.net













Someone Explain This To Me In Words That I Can Understand


I can not wrap my head around this whole transposing instrument thing. How is a C on a piano not a C on a sax, and for that matter a C on an Alto and Tenor are both different compared to the notes on a piano. And for god sake... WHY!?!?!?!? A note is a note right? Is there a chart somewhere...




www.saxontheweb.net


----------



## AddictedToSax

Dave Dunn said:


> And what happens when they ask a question?
> Someone says "this question has been asked before, use the search function, here's the links to a bunch of old threads." :/
> So what do you want? Repeated questions, or people reading old threads? It seems like what you want is no new members.
> 
> Edit - I'll leave my comment as is, but I'd like to point out that when I wrote it I was still in my irritable, pre-coffee morning mode. 😎


 Haha!
I usually get a bit pissy after my second beer. Timing is everything.


----------



## AddictedToSax

milandro said:


> No, it isn't only a reference that the old posts are useful for,
> 
> we are continuing a thread on late Super 20s and every time there is new information we add there, this is the way old threads stay alive. The thread started in 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Late King Super 20 and model 2416, new information
> 
> 
> So, I ended up buying this beauty , in great shape, it plays as well as my Eastake. Absolutely no tuning issues. Same ballsy voice get warm and soft at will. But I have to say the Eastlake has a different " vibe" , which I prefer. Great case (better than the one of earlier models) perfect fit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.saxontheweb.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is the way to keep threads alive
> 
> NOT by answering someone who asked 20 years ago about a mouthpiece for his horn ( and even then, if you make this a general thing, may be useful , it's the answering of a particular post by someone who stayed 3 days on the forum and never returned that makes no sense!


So what if I want to start a new thread about my recently acquired iridium plated solid platinum Klangbogen? Is that okay or should I post in the old klangbogen thread? Asking for a friend.


----------



## Arundo Donax

AddictedToSax said:


> So what if I want to start a new thread about my recently acquired iridium plated solid platinum Klangbogen? Is that okay or should I post in the old klangbogen thread? Asking for a friend.


I read on the internet that if you use such a Klangbogen, then the sax is no longer a transposing instrument. So that deserves a new thread.


----------



## Mk-Hmmr

Dr G said:


> For a new member that comes to SotW to buy, sell, trade, dump, or flip horns for fun and profit, the rules for access to the Classifieds (former aka Marketplace) require 6 months membership and 50 relevant posts.


Got it, thank you for the explanation


----------



## swperry1

Arundo Donax said:


> I read on the internet that if you use such a Klangbogen, then the sax is no longer a transposing instrument. So that deserves a new thread.


Word on the street is that you don't even have to wet your reed.


----------



## JL

Minnesota said:


> I mean absolutely no disrespect - but I don't know if I should laugh or cry.


Laugh or cry about what? Sorry, but since this was in response to my post, I don't see how it relates in any way to what I wrote. Please explain, if possible; otherwise there is no way to carry on a dialogue.


----------



## Minnesota

JL said:


> Laugh or cry about what? Sorry, but since this was in response to my post, I don't see how it relates in any way to what I wrote. Please explain, if possible; otherwise there is no way to carry on a dialogue.


Please re-read my original post regarding filtering. There is 'no' option to filter a particular message / thread / forum view to an individual's requirement.

Yes, there are meager and very unsophisticated options - a user can select an individual forum to view new content. But what a PITA if one has multiple forums they're interested in reading. Yes, a user can mark all messages read and subsequently select the 'NEW' option to display all new messages. Still less than stellar.

If for instance a user has read enough of the Klangbogen debacle and no longer wishes to be presented with that thread of messages, there is no way to hide it. They will be, until it's demise, presented with the option to view its contents or be reminded the thread won't die. Something, for me personally, that's irritating. Some will say, just ignore it, it's not that hard to ignore it. They're right, it's not that hard. But it would be much easier to simply hide it from view and forget its existence altogether. In today's digital age, that should be simple. Very simple. But the software isn't sophisticated and the Klangbogen lives on for more than 1000 posts.

The mere existence of this message thread indicates the appetite that some in the community feel 'new' user training to fit within the culture is needed. The OP clearly lands the blame on the user(s) for their infraction of resurrecting old / dead threads. Again, if the software were more sophisticated and capable I believe this thread would probably either not exist at all, or its legs would be very very short.

Given the software isn't going to change and new users will be a constant, I believe threads like this one will surface over and over and over. Gripe about the software, not the users.

Which takes me back - I don't know whether to laugh or cry....


----------



## Arundo Donax

On a different hobby-related forum, which still uses old software similar to what SOTW used to have, there are “Thread Tools” which allow the user to ignore a thread (among many operations as well). I don’t know if SOTW ever had that feature.

Ultimately, we are just passengers on this flight; I wish we had more control.

It’s always seemed ironic that the deluge of advertisements with the new owners and new site had the unintended consequence of causing many members to install ad-blockers, thereby defeating the source of revenue the new owners were hoping for.


----------



## Dub

It's tough to delete one after posting it. Ouch.


----------



## JL

Minnesota said:


> Please re-read my original post regarding filtering. There is 'no' option to filter a particular message / thread / forum view to an individual's requirement.
> 
> Yes, there are meager and very unsophisticated options - a user can select an individual forum to view new content. But what a PITA if one has multiple forums they're interested in reading. Yes, a user can mark all messages read and subsequently select the 'NEW' option to display all new messages. Still less than stellar.
> 
> If for instance a user has read enough of the Klangbogen debacle and no longer wishes to be presented with that thread of messages, there is no way to hide it. They will be, until it's demise, presented with the option to view its contents or be reminded the thread won't die. Something, for me personally, that's irritating. Some will say, just ignore it, it's not that hard to ignore it. They're right, it's not that hard. But it would be much easier to simply hide it from view and forget its existence altogether. In today's digital age, that should be simple. Very simple. But the software isn't sophisticated and the Klangbogen lives on for more than 1000 posts.
> 
> The mere existence of this message thread indicates the appetite that some in the community feel 'new' user training to fit within the culture is needed. The OP clearly lands the blame on the user(s) for their infraction of resurrecting old / dead threads. Again, if the software were more sophisticated and capable I believe this thread would probably either not exist at all, or its legs would be very very short.
> 
> Given the software isn't going to change and new users will be a constant, I believe threads like this one will surface over and over and over. Gripe about the software, not the users.
> 
> Which takes me back - I don't know whether to laugh or cry....


Ok, thanks for explaining. I'm clearly not nearly as savvy about this stuff as you are; as I mentioned in another thread, I use NO social media, aside from this site (which may or may not qualify as 'social media').

In any case, I don't think those of us using this site have any say in how it is administered. I guess the options are to either complain, just deal with it as is, or give up on it. I'm willing to deal.


----------



## JacobMW

as a somewhat newbie i will point out that the fine line between zombie threads and asking questions which have been previously asked is a tad difficult to tread.

If you ask a question which has been asked before you will be hammered with people pointing this out, but if you comment on a thread which is deemed too old, out come the zombie thread comments.


----------



## Dr G

JacobMW said:


> as a somewhat newbie i will point out that the fine line between zombie threads and asking questions which have been previously asked is a tad difficult to tread.
> 
> If you ask a question which has been asked before you will be hammered with people pointing this out, but if you comment on a thread which is deemed too old, out come the zombie thread comments.


If you read the comments in this thread that address the opening post, you would understand that one person in particular seemed to be exhuming dormant posts as a vehicle to promote his book.

The only thing better than spam is fried spam...

... with green chile and a gluten-free IPA, please.


----------



## Minnesota

Dr G said:


> If you read the comments in this thread that address the opening post, you would understand that one person in particular seemed to be exhuming dormant posts as a vehicle to promote his book.
> 
> The only thing better than spam is fried spam...
> 
> ... with green chile and a gluten-free IPA, please.


Do we really think it was to promote a book? If so, he could have done a much better job by supplying a link or two for a page. He could have written a post - Hey has anyone used this book? I was thinking about getting it for my ....

The whole 50 post requirement thing isn't really that effective beyond keeping autobots from over running the forum with automated posts. (I'd guess this is its actual intent).

I see posts here all the time asking questions about this craigslist ad, that ebay auction, and whaddya think of this axe I found on reverb. It just takes a modicum of creative writing to come up with something that would blaze past the classified section participation filter requirements.

I feel ole Tom is simply trying to fit in and offer up what he believes to be useful information. But who knows, maybe he is going to extraordinary lengths to up that ole post count so he can hawk his book. Then he'll be able to post how many books he's run off the printer today and subsequently post how many are left every few days to just keep us all in the know.


----------



## ROARII

I predict that someone will post to this thread 15 years from now and ask if we ever decided if it was acceptable to post to old threads.


----------



## AddictedToSax

JacobMW said:


> as a somewhat newbie i will point out that the fine line between zombie threads and asking questions which have been previously asked is a tad difficult to tread.
> 
> If you ask a question which has been asked before you will be hammered with people pointing this out, but if you comment on a thread which is deemed too old, out come the zombie thread comments.


Yes, it's not very welcoming to newcomers, is it. Every forum on the internet has the old guys that feel it's their job to whip the newbies into shape. Without the same old questions over and over the site would eventually dry up and blow away. On the photography sites it's Nikon or Canon. Or maybe you get RAW vs. JPEG. Then the old hands will jump in and complain that the topic has been covered a hundred times. I don't get why it bothers anyone. If it's a topic you're not interested move on to something else.

I get what Milandro is saying about attempting to keep info in one place to make it easier to find. Problem is, the search function here doesn't work all that great anymore. The other problem is, if you're new to the site you don't know that topic X has been covered a hundred times already. I suppose the administrators could move the topic to the tail end of another similar one in the interest of consolidation but no one is going to want to take on that task. Without that new traffic we'd soon run out of stuff to talk about.


----------



## JL

AddictedToSax said:


> Then the old hands will jump in and complain that the topic has been covered a hundred times. *I don't get why it bothers anyone. If it's a topic you're not interested move on to something else.*


+1. This is essentially how I feel about this particular topic/complaint.

Also, I'd much rather be discussing music or something related to the sax! But of course, the irony is here I am on this thread.


----------



## dirty

My least favorite part about this trend is that I am regularly forced to come face to face with posts I wrote when I was 17-22 years old. 

The feature I actually want is the ability to block posts from myself written between 2004 and 2010.


----------



## Pete Thomas

AddictedToSax said:


> So what if I want to start a new thread about my recently acquired iridium plated solid platinum Klangbogen? Is that okay or should I post in the old klangbogen thread? Asking for a friend


I would advise the existing thread as it's just a variation, if it was radically different or a different brand of a similar concept a new thread would be best.


Minnesota said:


> But the software isn't sophisticated


It is very sophisticated and capabale of what you want (ignored threads etc.) it's all down to decisions by the owners not to avail themeselves of that feature.


JacobMW said:


> as a somewhat newbie i will point out that the fine line between zombie threads and asking questions which have been previously asked is a tad difficult to tread.


I don't see it as a fine line. We are discussing the differences between (on the one hand) asking a question and (on the other hand) just an irrelevant answer to an old thread. One is questions, the other is answers.



JacobMW said:


> If you ask a question which has been asked before you will be hammered with people pointing this out, but if you comment on a thread which is deemed too old, out come the zombie thread comments.


I think a lot of people here are missing the basic difference between these two things.



AddictedToSax said:


> Without the same old questions over and over the site would eventually dry up and blow away.


People will have the same questions, that's natural. But to keep starting a new thread each time could well be harmful to the site (based on how Google alogorhythms work and possible penalisation of what it considers duplicate content)


AddictedToSax said:


> I get what Milandro is saying about attempting to keep info in one place to make it easier to find. Problem is, the search function here doesn't work all that great anymore.


Can you give examples of that? (probably best in its own thread). I find the serach to work reasonabaly well.



AddictedToSax said:


> I suppose the administrators could move the topic to the tail end of another similar one in the interest of consolidation but no one is going to want to take on that task.


Well a few of us took on that task on and we quite frequently merge topics.

But again - all this talk about asking questions in new or existing threads is completely irrelevant to the thread.

There is nothing wrong with an old thread being revived with a question that is very closely related to it and adds some value. In fact it is a very good idea and often better than starting a new thread. If it's exactly the same question and is answered, then I'd say it's better not to revive that thread and certainly best not to start a duplicate one.

But giving your advice about high school to someone who asked 15 years ago is a very different kettle of fish.


----------



## Dave Dolson

Thanks, Pete, for bringing the thread back to my original intent . . . the senseless replies by new members to long-dead issues. DAVE


----------



## JL

Pete Thomas said:


> *There is nothing wrong with an old thread being revived with a question that is relevant to it. In fact it is a very good idea and often better than starting a new thread.*
> 
> But giving your advice about high school to someone who asked 14 years ago is a very different kettle of fish.


+1. Agreed 100%!
Thanks Pete for stating the issue so clearly and concisely.


----------



## Fader

I have a great addition to this thread but I'm just going to sit on it for a few years...


----------



## Arundo Donax

Pete Thomas said:


> ...
> But giving your advice about high school to someone who asked 15 years ago is a very different kettle of fish.


Even when that happens, SOTW members have been polite in mentioning the situation - it's a simple mistake that happens occasionally. But when that posting behavior keeps happening, people question intent.


----------



## 14470

Pete Thomas said:


> But giving your advice about high school to someone who asked 15 years ago is a very different kettle of fish.


Depends entirely on the query and response.


----------



## Laggszboy

This is a silly thread, admit it. C'mon, don't be afraid someone will be offended, people get offended all the time. This is a silly thread. Period. HERE is an argument against OLD members posting NEW threads:


----------



## Bborzell

Between the time that I read the original post and finally finished with #87, I began to wonder how I might get this time back.


----------



## reedcusa

Been an active member since Apr 16, 2016 and have 9 responses. By active I mean I daily read posts and have made extensive use of the search function. Basically started playing in 2017 and have very little to give. So I don't have buying/selling privileges', I get I'M the ass...


----------



## 14470

Laggszboy said:


> This is a silly thread, admit it. C'mon, don't be afraid someone will be offended, people get offended all the time. This is a silly thread. Period. HERE is an argument against OLD members posting NEW threads:


This is brilliant. We will restrict old members to posting in old threads and new members in new. It will be mostly old members offending each other, which they have been doing for ages anyway. In turn, the new members will be able to discuss free from intervention by older folks. There is something here that does have a familiar ring to it, but I am too senile to put my finger on what it is.


----------



## Pete Thomas

brasscane said:


> Depends entirely on the query and response.


You are totally right, and I think (hope) that when I've mentioned this it has been in the context of relevant or irrelevant.

I don't think anyone would argue that that the OP by Dave is in regard to specific types of reply that now are not really relevant. This whole thread can be a lesson in relevancy as so many people seem to be discussing different things rather than what the original post is about.


----------



## SaxinDC

Dave Dolson said:


> What is it with the several new members posting in old threads? Most of the posts by new members are made without context, as if they are carrying on a conversation with previous thread-posters. Some of our more seasoned members gently comment that the thread is dead and the issues have long been overtaken by events (e.g., high schoolers in 2006 but probably now Dads themselves), but the hints seem to be ignored and the new member(s) keeps right on making inane comments in other old threads.
> 
> It appears they are merely trying to increase their post count - they certainly are not adding anything to the forum. We've all made that mistake, I suspect, but quickly recover - and often apologize for the oversight. I think the mods should take more direct action in these cases. A soft comment at first, then issue a warning or whatever the admin provides for such abuse - and I see repeated posts of this nature as an abuse. DAVE


You know .....its tough being new here. Old timers give the new guys a hard time with asking duplicate questions on new threads. If you complain about using old posts is kind of like you dont want new people to post anything. Im just throwing it out there that you cant have it both ways. Some people are just trying to make connections, open dialoges so people will interact with them, make new friends and learn from people who are more skilled and experienced. There really isnt any benefit in increasing the post content as lots of people have over 20 thousand posts and they could never catch up. There is suggested reading below all posts which leads to the old posts. Just ignore the content that you dont like and absorb or participate in the topics you wish to. Find the Sunshine in youth rather than let Clouds bring you down.


----------



## Pete Thomas

Looks like we just have to accept that many people are not understanding the point of this thread! 

Sorry Dave


----------



## milandro

Indeed.

The point of this thread was to ask people to pay at least attention to the fact that they are posting in old threads because of the suggestions made by “ recommended for you”.

About everything else.

The only point in keeping the archives is to use them, the only way to keep them useful is to keep information as much as possible in on place.

Opening new threads dilutes information to the point that keeping the archives is rendered then useless .
Within the archives there are the answers to most general queries which at some point or other many people would want to ask.
Yet there is still plenty to ask if you want to make your mark on stow.

If one doesn’t understand the answer in an old thread or is not satisfied by them one can still continue asking, but please do this in an old thread. Opening a new thread where there was already an old one only makes the layers to search more impenetrable.


I think there was an attempt to list the most asked questions , perhaps we can do this again.
I predict that even then people will still ignore it ,as they ignore reading the previous posts in a long thread or ignore using the search engine or refuse to read whatever has been written time and time again on matters that are hardly new ( but expect people to answer with the same enthusiasm now as they did already).


----------



## johnebravo

SaxinDC said:


> You know .....its tough being new here. Old timers give the new guys a hard time with asking duplicate questions on new threads. If you complain about using old posts is kind of like you dont want new people to post anything. Im just throwing it out there that you cant have it both ways. Some people are just trying to make connections, open dialoges so people will interact with them, make new friends and learn from people who are more skilled and experienced. There really isnt any benefit in increasing the post content as lots of people have over 20 thousand posts and they could never catch up. There is suggested reading below all posts which leads to the old posts. Just ignore the content that you dont like and absorb or participate in the topics you wish to. Find the Sunshine in youth rather than let Clouds bring you down.


Clearly, there's little point in answering a question looking for specific advice which is obviously "time sensitive" a decade after it was asked.

There's a difference between questions like
(1) "I've been playing for 6 months and use a #2 reed -- should I try a #2 1/2?"
and
(2) "What's a good mouthpiece for a beginner?"

There's obviously no point in trying to answer (1) a decade after it was asked, but there's also little point in having 17 different threads all attempting to address (2). No one wants to repeat the same basic information over and over, and constant repetitious threads tend to junk up the site for long-time users.

Part of the problem is the new "Recommended for you" function which fooled me a number of times before I learned to completely ignore it. But it also probably should be admitted that another factor that is contributing to the problem is one poster who is either incredibly obtuse or stubborn and keeps resurrecting threads of the first type; I've seen _at least_ 6 instances of this in the last couple of weeks . . .


----------



## milandro

I have also asked him about his book and how were the sales going, he hasn’t bothered to answer


----------



## 14470

Pete Thomas said:


> I think (hope) that when I've mentioned this it has been in the context of relevant or irrelevant.


Yes, but it clearly means different things to different people and for you or someone else to start policing or fixing this seems to be a complete waste of - importantly your - time. You won't succeed getting rid of the chaos, and, as long as it isn't mean or ugly, it doesn't harm anyone.


----------



## Serafino

Pete Thomas said:


> Looks like we just have to accept that many people are not understanding the point of this thread!
> 
> Sorry Dave


How shocking! What an abnormality! Can such things be??


----------



## bobsax

I’m just reading the first page here. But this is always been an interesting topic To me. I always was of the opinion that depending on the length of the thread ;
1)better to chime in on an old thread ,especially if there is pertinent information that you want to address in it. 
2)the amount of pages in the thread really matter. An older thread with 10 or 20 or more pages may be filled with lots of banter and little information. So better to start a new thread.
3) how many threads do we need on sticking pads? Much better to chime in on an old one.


----------

