Locking Threads
 

I realize we all don't want a bunch of duplicate threads, but I've been noticing threads being locked lately because there was some thread on a similar subject a year or two ago and that kind of seems like overkill to me. Is this really what we want? Personally, I think I'd rather see people starting new threads than resurrecting two year old threads full of posts by people who haven't logged in a year. Anyone with me on this?

Here's one example. Notice that the older thread that was linked to is four years old, hasn't had a new post in two years and was started by someone who hasn't visited MB since 2005.

It just keeps the place a lot more tidy. There's no point having like 10 threads for all the obvious bands that keep having threads made for them because the same thing will be said over and over again.

If someone comes along and starts a thread of a band that has an existing thread and it's done better than the one thats already there it's kept open.

However 99% of the time it isn't so it's either locked or merged.

and it's much easier to keep in order one thread with 50 replies than it is to keep 10 threads with 5 replies.

When there's another thread that's a couple weeks or months old I can totally understand merging (not locking) them, but when you're talking about a previous thread that is several years old it seems counterproductive. It's not like these older threads are hanging around on the first couple pages of their respective forums. As I mentioned in my OP, these threads are frequently several years old and filled with posts by people who haven't visited here in ages. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who no longer posts here, so locking threads by current posters and linking to threads by former posters feels more like it's stifling discussion than encouraging it.

I don't really see how it makes any difference, If your starting a new thread your not talking to those people anyway. If you have anything of note to say it won't make any difference where it's posted.

As it stands we find it easier to have one band = one thread. The only exceptions being album releases or reviews.

The way you have to see it is that bumping an old thread doesn't have to lead to continuing the same discussions which were started before it was bumped, in most cases it opens up new discussion for the new generation as it were.
Merging is the best thing to do, again it keeps the place tidy, but sometimes there's no point because the thread in question doesn't lend anything to discussion.

Well if you think there's no difference, why bother locking the newer threads then?

But of course I do think there's a difference. The difference is this: It's easier to reply to a new thread full of current comments than it is to wade through 10 pages of comments by people who no longer post here.

Is it really that difficult to click on the last page?

And as I already said post something of note and it won't be locked 99.9% of the ones locked are just 'hey what do you think of this band' type posts.

I see your point, but if you don't happen to jump in the day the thread gets resurrected it's really hard to find the beginning of the new conversation among 15 pages of posts from 2005.

I'm not really sure I understand the whole "keeping the place tidy" reasoning. Like I mentioned earlier it's not as if there are multiple threads on the same topic in the first couple pages of the forum, we're talking about digging down to the deepest sub-basements of forums to find these old threads.

No. But that's not necessarily where the new conversation begins if you come across the resurrected thread more than a day after it came back from the grave.

By the same token, wouldn't it actually be easier for mods to just leave the new threads alone? It seems like it would be easier for everyone involved.