When searching for technical topics on google, whirlpool forum results are often returned.

It would be great to be able to add to these threads rather than start new ones on the same topic/idea.

I came across one such thread and got this error when I tried to post a reply:
forum-alert.cfm?a=err-tarch
Sorry, this thread has been archived. No more replies can be added to it.

As can be seen from these two whirlpool links:
stats-google.cfm
forum-search-topgoogle.cfm
people are coming across archived whirlpool threads all the time. It would be nice if after when you press the "Post Reply" button the archived thread would be automatically moved(or copied then deleted) from the read only section of the database to the dynamic table and then have the user's reply appended to the end of the thread.

The thread I wanted to reply to was the only thread on this topic:
Private peering with squid
An excellent idea especially for those that have free data from peered sources. I don't know why it didn't take off(from reading the thread it looks like they hit a dead end from trying to do it a custom software way) especially when this sort of thing was done in the early days of whirlpool:
whirlpool.net.au/article...w=all&ux=449
/forum-replies.cfm?t=6809#r9
/forum-replies.cfm?t=150736&p=10#r200
users.bigpond.net.au/deadcities

What's wrong with starting a new thread? An archived thread is very old, and so probably would be the ideas presented in it.

Wilber Washbucket writes...

It would be great to be able to add to these threads rather than start new ones on the same topic/idea.

At times, if there is sufficient reasoning for the bumping of an archived thread, Simon and/or Phil can manually allow such a bump to occur. For instance, the following thread was bumped after nearly 3 years of inactivity:

/forum-replies.cfm?t=324585#r12

Of course, one should bear in mind that depending on the circumstances, creating a new thread with reference to the archived thread(s) in question in the OP would typically be the ideal course of action for one to take. =)

Wilber Washbucket writes...

It would be nice if after when you press the "Post Reply" button the archived thread would be automatically moved(or copied then deleted) from the read only section of the database to the dynamic table and then have the user's reply appended to the end of the thread.

Assuming they are Whirlpool members?

Also this can be quite a problem especially if the thread is rather long and the previous question has been answered. You ask another question and people start replying to the previous question that has already been solved.

I see this happen quite a lot. I do it sometimes (reply to an old thread) and the help is generally not as specific as if you were to start a new thread.

radar writes...

At times, if there is sufficient reasoning for the bumping of an archived thread, Simon and/or Phil can manually allow such a bump to occur.
I was suggesting an automated method be implemented rather than having an owner and/or moderator do it manually.

∠Broηté J. writes...

Assuming they are Whirlpool members?
You have to be a member in order to post replies anyway as Whirlpool hasn't allowed anonymous posting in years.

I'd suggest that the majority of people have joined Whirlpool in order to post a reply to a forum thread :P Especially a thread they found via google:
/stats-google.cfm
/forum-search-topgoogle.cfm

≤ Matt ≥ writes...

What's wrong with starting a new thread? An archived thread is very old, and so probably would be the ideas presented in it.
Some ideas are timeless, some have a longer time span than the current archive cut off. Sometimes advances in knowledge and technology present a solution to a problem that could not be solved before or could now be solved more easily making it accessible to more people.

radar writes...

Of course, one should bear in mind that depending on the circumstances, creating a new thread with reference to the archived thread(s) in question in the OP would typically be the ideal course of action for one to take. =)
By replying to a thread you are adding to an existing body of knowledge rather than starting again from scratch/afresh. This is especially handy if you came across the thread via a search engine. Even if you create a link to the archived thread in your new thread, this is a one way link, there is no way to get to the new thread with updated information from the old thread that you are reading. Judging from this page:
/stats-google.cfm
a lot of people are coming across threads via google:
these searches all happened in the last 4 minutes... wow!!
^^ 250(correct at the time of composing) threads found via google in the last 4 minutes.

∠Broηté J. writes...

Also this can be quite a problem especially if the thread is rather long and the previous question has been answered. You ask another question and people start replying to the previous question that has already been solved.

I see this happen quite a lot. I do it sometimes (reply to an old thread) and the help is generally not as specific as if you were to start a new thread.
See above. Whirlpool forums isn't some type of ticketed support system. I see OPs requesting that their thread to be closed(e.g. /forum-replies.cfm?t=952827&p=4#r65) only to go on becoming more useful as more information is added and sometimes even becoming the topic of a front page news article:
Tasmanian backhaul saga continues

I'm all for the new thread option.

Ask your question, and then say something like There is an old archived thread here and I want to reopen discussion. Or something to that effect.

Shows that you've searched, see? Then you can't be accused of being lazy.

heisdeadjim writes...

Ask your question, and then say something

Your method wouldn't be that practical, if we had to create a new thread to ask for an archived thread's restrictions be changed them the new thread is a waste of space.

The only solution immediately available is to either WHIM a moderator who can then take action as necessary or for Simon and Phil to completely do away with the whole archiving.

I cannot see the second option happening any time soon, create a new thread and get fresh ideas.

No no what I mean is you're using the new thread as a vehicle to reopen discussion on the issue you found in the archived thread. Discussion continues in the new thread, the old archived one remains as is.

I only mentioned it before because far too many people fail to search, so if you give a nod to the archive at least you've tried a look.

heisdeadjim writes...

the new thread as a vehicle to reopen discussion on the issue you found in the archived thread

That would result in a new thread and a then un-archived thread discussing the same issue.

A new thread gives you the ability to discuss issues and resolutions that could be substantially different than the times of the past.

/forum-replies.cfm?t=973617#r1

A rather esoteric movie question asked by me - probably no one will answer :) I've given a nod to the archived threads and started a new one.

That's what I mean.

Tasc writes...

The only solution immediately available is to either WHIM a moderator who can then take action as necessary or for Simon and Phil to completely do away with the whole archiving.
You don't need to do away with archiving. As I understand it, there are performance benefits with the current archiving setup. I am just proposing an automated method to un-archive threads that have been replied to.

heisdeadjim writes...

I'm all for the new thread option.

heisdeadjim writes...

/forum-replies.cfm?t=973617#r1

A rather esoteric movie question asked by me - probably no one will answer :) I've given a nod to the archived threads and started a new one.

That's what I mean.
I'm against the new thread option. Let's use your new thread as a hypothetical example. Hypothetically you asked your esoterical question in this thread:
/forum-replies.cfm?t=268121
top gun: where do the missiles go?
but never got an answer. Some months pass and after doing further research you find the answer and decide to post it. You find that the thread has been archived and so you create a new thread with a link to the archived thread and post your answer in the new thread. The problem? You have only created a one way link. What if someone finds this thread via google:
/forum-replies.cfm?t=268121
top gun: where do the missiles go?
sees your question and also that person wants to know the answer? That someone will not find the answer and will not know that a new thread has been created.

Here's a real example of that. The Whirlpool Version #2 Lanyards have not been created yet:
/forum-replies.cfm?t=784226&p=25#r497
detzol writes...
hey guys

unfortantly i have not had the time to get around to starting on the design.
and as such I wanted to add to the Lanyard Quotes as found in this different thread:
/forum-replies.cfm?t=799054
Whirlpool Version #2 Lanyard Quotes
however it was archived and so I could not add to it :-( So I posted in the Whirlpool Version #2 Lanyards thread:
/forum-replies.cfm?t=784226&p=28#r549

Wilber Washbucket writes...

/forum-replies.cfm?t=799054
Whirlpool Version #2 Lanyard Quotes

You could take the list here:
whirlpool.net.au/wiki/?tag=Powered_By
and substitute forums for whirlpool to come up with some quirky quotes.

whirlpool - WhirlCode, herring, and WhiMs - what more do you want?

whirlpool - On a WhiM and a prayer
^^ As you can see in my post I put in a link to the thread, but it is a one way link. When people read the Whirlpool Version #2 Lanyard Quotes thread how will they know that I have suggested quotes in a different thread? They won't which is why I suggested this thread, adding the ability re: replying to archived threads.

I agree with the OP. I've only come across this maybe one or two times, but still worth implementing I think.

Hi Wilber Washbucket,

There's two options in this scenario.

The first is, as suggested, stating a new thread. This isn't entirely all that bad if you link the archived thread in your new response. If you start off saying something like:

Continuing from the old archived thread:
<link>

People are sure to have a look at it and, if interested, read through to get the knowledge anyway. You can work from there. If you wanted there's also nothing to stop you quoting significant posts from said old thread to ensure they're carried over.

The second option is somewhat trickier. Simon and Phil have the ability to un-archive threads, but this is only done when there is a significant need to do so. In some of the examples quoted, it's a good idea. Some others it is not so much.

Basically if you really think the thread is better off un-archived (usually long threads) then send Simon or Phil a WhiM and ask them if they will un-archive it. They'll assess the thread and see if it needs it. Otherwise you're probably stuck with having to create a new thread.

When a new thread is opened on an archived subject, wouldn't it make sense for Simon or Phil or a mod to be asked to put a link in the archived thread connecting it to the new thread, or is that something too difficult to do ?

Cheers :)

Ashli writes...

wouldn't it make sense for Simon or Phil or a mod to be asked to put a link in the archived thread connecting it to the new thread, or is that something too difficult to do ?

In what capacity? Surely the OP has just as much ability to link the the relevant thread?

Loctorak writes...

In what capacity?

I think Ashli means putting a link in the archived thread to the new thread which we are not able to do.

Which might be a good idea because if you're reading an older thread that's been archived you don't necessarily know a new one has been created.

∠Broηté J. writes...

I think Ashli means putting a link in the archived thread to the new thread which we are not able to do.

Ah righto. I'm not sure if Mods can action archived threads, but it's possible, so just send one of us a WhiM and we will do that for you.

∠Broηté J. writes...

I think Ashli means putting a link in the archived thread to the new thread which we are not able to do.

Which might be a good idea because if you're reading an older thread that's been archived you don't necessarily know a new one has been created.

Thanks ∠Broηté J., that is what I meant.

So I guess being able to do that through Whimming a mod, would solve the problem of linking archived threads and new threads to each other both ways rather than just from the new thread to the archived thread.

:)

Edit: Made last sentence clearer.