Using (other) search engines, maybe in some cases with a general search that has the GOG thread as one of the results, possibly even resulting in an account just created in order to post, and in others a search restricted to GOG forum posts, just because the forum's search is basically unusable?

Don't bury the body!
Such a waste of perfectly fine organic material.

I'm not sure how keeping all the comments in a single thread is more work than having dozens of separate conversations all talking about the same thing (over many days, months, or even years) is better.

I spend a great deal of time keeping track of all my contributions, usually in more than one thread, about the same conversation.

The threads themselves are timestamped, so it is immediately explicit exactly how old a comment is, and who the author is —— reputation will cause most to pause if the subject is vexatious.
Exactly.

Why are you writing off someone's different opinion as trolling?

I'm not. It has nothing to do with opinions.

I find the more rules you have, the more of a hassle it is to enforce them and the worse it is for the community at large. A forum should be well moderated so that it's a good time for everybody, not a micromanagement hell or some hole for the barbarous sort to have their fun. So in the case of necro-ing, it should be a case by case basis (like some troll bumping up every thread from a decade ago).

Yes, they think if you don't agree with them, you are trolling.
Just like how they can't accept someone don't want to see those forum games topics, and hold a grudge against me for that.
It is easy this to see is clearly the case,when they dvote normal comments constantly.


Anyway, back to this topic.
I can't see Re-release Gothic 2-3 topic from 2015 is being closed.
Yet covid topic which is still actual is closed down when some added new info.
How does this make any sense.

I'm not sure how that has anything to do with what I said that you quoted, and I certainly never claimed that first bit you state.

What you say doesn't seem related to what I said at all, so it's probable you misunderstood my meaning, which the use of the word 'work' would imply.

I don't get the personal angle either, as none of us are likely do things the same.

Timestamps are only applicable if noticed, and those who reply are only as savvy as they happen to be ... which is not very sometimes ... and you lost me altogether with the mention of reputation.

GOG get all sorts at the forum and as customers.

You are being downvoted to hell and back bacause you are on many people ignore list, not because you're a victim and they are actually taking the time to actually downvoting you manually. It has nothing to do with liking or not the so called forum games.

Brevis esse loboro, obscurus fio.

My comment on reputation, I concur, was a little too brief. (Mea culpa; I was in a hurry. :)
I was not referring to the Gog forum property, so often abused and vilified —— though this is precisely what it is supposed to do.

I was referring to that sociological quality referred to by, e.g., Adam Smith, when he summarized that competition and reputation are sufficient to ensure markets work —— conceding the conceit that this forum acts as a market for ideas. Scottish moral philosopher, Adam Smith (1776), The Wealth of Nations.

Word-of-mouth is the most powerful force in the market. (But not the only one; received wisdom can be easily corrupted; we continually need to refer back to reality, lest we lose relevance. Hence the rise of the Empiricist movement in philosophy, but I digress. )

As for the first part of my reply to you, I was pointing out that there was a (built-in!) mechanism to counter the problem you outlined (out-of-date information) to which you seem to be saying that it is too onerous to check the date a comment was made when replying to it. (Here.)

In my reply, this is what I quoted:
Which was the conclusion you drew from this line of reasoning:
The mechanism to combat said outdated information is the timestamp. (The risk is approximately proportionate to age: the older the information, the greater the risk of it being supplanted by newer, more relevant commentary.) Add to this the reputation of the author. (Sciliciet, questons like Is the author the type of person to make egregious mistakes?, Have they made political comments where a scientific one is more apt?, and about a million other assessments people make when reading the comments of others.)

HTH

The problem with some people, like yourself, is that you attempt to put words in my mouth that I never said, and like so many who quote things philosophical or psychological, you don't really understand what you read. You are trying to push borrowed wisdom as your own, and are badly applying it.

I never said onerous, nor implied it. I used the word - notice. And I know that, because I have on a rare occasion or two, been guilty of not noticing myself.

Well said, like a robot, but completely out of whack with reality.

What sensible person trusts supposed reputation, especially how it is garnered in a forum like this, where there is no real oversight or control. I rarely if ever take REP into account here, especially as some here with high REP, are not paragons of virtue by any means.

Sorry, and I don't mean to be rude, but much of what you say is just gobble-de-gook, which is why I didn't get its relevance ... and still don't. And don't push your conclusion about my conclusion as being fact, as it isn't. Take off the mental tunnel vision glasses and expand your horizons.

And you are quoting me out of context, as a necessary element 'being savvy' is missing.

Humans are flawed, humans don't always pay proper attention, humans (like yourself) often don't read properly, and some are just plain lazy etc etc.

As they say, a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous, and for those not that savvy enough, that can be very true.

I am a great supporter of 'prevention is the best cure'. Though not to the degree of those like Mozilla, Microsoft and Apple etc etc, who deprive you of your right of choice or control at times ... or bury that choice in huge hurdles to overcome first.

You make the very good point:
I agree.

I myself have made the same mistake you seem to think is a reason to abandon the principle of keeping conversations together. To wit:
Ditto.

Now, here is the answer to that problem.


The beauty of the timestamp is that it provides a register of comments, sorted by date, by default.

So, even if one misses the date of the comment one is replying to, it is still evident for all other subsequent readers. Thus helping to alleviate the problem you are obstinately determined to posit as the critical flaw which must be cured with multiple threads about the same topic, as opposed to the (to my mind) much more reasonable solution of keeping old conversations alive. The biggest drawback to this solution is the length of some complex subjects. This is adequately obviated by the ability to jump to a recent part of the extended conversation —— i.e., jump to the end!
I specifically excluded the Gog reputation system from my comments. (Even though it is hardly fit for purpose, it is not as useless as you assert, especially when combined with the equally visible date of inception for the account of the author who is making the reply.)
Actually, I think you are trying very desperately to be rude. It doesn't bother me at all, however. :)

I think upon reviewing my comments you will see I liberally use terms like "seem" in order to underline the inherently murky nature of such a medium as the forum.
I totally agree. (Though I can't think what this has to do with the necrovivification of old conversations.)

Bud you would be totally incorrect. If anything I was desperately trying not to be rude, but you make that challenging.

To me it appears you are desperately making assumptions about things concerning me, and getting them wrong.

Lovely big technical kind of word you used there, probably made up, though I can't be bothered to check. You do realize that most people here are normal, and that kind of thing just illustrates the different kind of mindset you operate with. I'm not telling you that to be rude or be unkind, just that you are not gaining any points being like that. While many here are certainly intellectual, at times, you seem to be over-indulging, perhaps even trying to show off.

I grew up with a dude, who on the surface you seem similar to. We used to call him Commander Sliderule at school. He is a great friend, even 50+ years later. In fact he was best man at my wedding many years ago.

Anyway mate, I almost totally disagree with what you have been saying. It seems to me you have a pet theory and are trying to force things to fit it. I still don't get the rationale of that date thing, that you wasted yourself repeating. For my money, we are on two totally different pages, that you somehow think are related.

At this point it seems pretty evident our conversation in regard to one another, is not going to go anywhere positive, but regardless I wish you all the best, and you are certainly entitled to your view or opinion.

Cheers.

clearly some intolerant people use bots/scripts and some others just press dvotes nonstop
there is a reason they are doing this probably forum games or other where they cant accept different opinions

anyway both of these are against the forum rules and should be dealt with with meaningful punishments

Of course I am ignorant of your meaning. (Otherwise what would be the need for the question in the first place?) Like Socrates, I do not shy from my ignorance; au contraire, I embrace it, lest I learn nothing from life. (Oh noes!!1!, did I just use a foreign phrase? Moi? :P)
Thank you for the advice. You do realize that more people speak English as a foreign language than as a mother tongue? Perhaps I speak this way for a reason. (Exception: please note that it is you who is the one who that has made repeated assumptions about me, not I about you.)

As someone who is au fait with psychology, I can tell you authoritatively and categorically that there is no such thing as “normal”. (Technically, the variance is too great for their to be any significance in something so blunt as a mean.) What a bland world you wish for, methinks, where everyone must conform to some arbitrary standard of normality. Viva la difference!

And Yes, as a matter of fact I did create that word for the purpose of conveying the semantic payload it delivers. (Thank you, but it’s not that difficult: just combine two or more Classical roots —— anyone can do it —— try it!) (To answer your next question, I do it because it is shorthand; it allows the encapsulation of an underlying concept in a beautifully succinct phrase. Classically, this is termed concinnity. Do you see its utility? Otherwise it would be necessary to write at length to describe in detail what I wish to convey —— so be thankful for small mercies.)

Ergo, whether you mean it or not, the inescapable rational conclusion you are broadcasting is that I talk normally (like you, presumably) or be silent. Which is a rather odd wish on a discussion forum, but not for a congregation of the faithful. (Because if everyone says the same things in the same ways we would all be just repeating each other. Which I would assert is a waste of bandwidth. YMMD) I would quote John Stuart Mill and a free society's prerequisite need for the civil exchange of differing points of view, but you would indubitably object.

Oh, all right: JS Mill (posthumously, 1859), On Liberty, p.72.
Mr Timboli, you are a disappointing conversationalist.

Scientific method uses the peer group to pursue the null hypothesis. The whole point is for others to find the faults in that which is posited by their peer.

Rather than all of this editorial opinion you have chosen to publish about who you think I am, perhaps if you concentrated on the topic we might actually come to some mutually agreeable concord? Revolutionary, I know.

For instance, when you wrote:
Try and follow this logic: the listener must attempt to re-word that which their interlocutor has said in the effort to demonstrate comprehension. Otherwise, even given a perfect recall, the speaker has no clue as to whether their audience has understood what was spoken. Do you see? You may wrote learn the utterances of Mandarin, but that does not mean you speak Chinese.

So of course I was attempting “to put words into [your] mouth” because this is precisely how to demonstrate comprehension, by re-wording that which was said, No?

Oh, and what’s wrong with trying to apply overheard wisdom? How on Earth would you learn without doing? You seem terrified of being seen to make a mistake. I have no such qualms. Mistakes are opportunities to learn. (BTW, your insult might have had more impact if, I don’t know, I hadn’t heard it from Gene Kelly in An American In Paris —— a movie made seventy years ago. :)
There is no fate but what we make. You may see an unavoidable calamity, but I see opportunity. My search for meaning does not imply a lack in you. Retract your claws, Sir!

I seek not to injure you by confronting your assertions, but instead to clarify what you wish to assert, in this our attempt to exchange meaning, via such a limited modulation of bare text devoid of gesticulation and facial cue , where one must strive harder to be understood than in a personal chat.

Let me start: We are in violent agreement. :)

Now, you expressed ignorance (quell horreur!) at my reference of work when describing the process of gleaning utilization from a conversation, as I said here: I’m not sure how this is unclear. Whilst I am online and conducting conversations such as this, I spend time collating both others’ and my responses.

To this you replied that: The personal angle is my attempt to explain how I —— hence personally, my only reliable proof —— use these social media conversations. See, you seem to have identified what I mean by “work” in your own initial comment:
That is the same “work”, Yes?

Please, since I cannot think of one, would you make some attempt at an example? One where a datestamp would be ineffective in minimizing confusion?

…

Now, having said that, there may be situations where there is no good answer to the dilemma of many short threads versus one very long discussion. For instance, if the list of replies numbers in the thousands of pages, I can see the limitations that such an overload of data would create.

It would be perfectly suitable to create a new, supplemental conversation to carry forward from that longer older one. It would aid utility to summarize the preceding in the early part of the latter, too: an index. (Flourishes like direct hyperlinks to particularly salient referent comments from the former discussion placed in the summary would be excellent addition.)

Do you see what I am trying to say? I am looking at a raw source of information (a conversation between multiple contributors over a length of time about a particular subject) and attempting to mine all the useful conclusions, with their context intact, from it.

Now, I am sure you have many questions. Please feel free to ask them. Or not. ./..

edit: bad link