# Off Topic > Suggestions for Improvement >  >  I tried to praise this forum, but after this, I probably won't be coming back

## sdanex

I had only in my very first post tried to *compliment* this forum, but instead had a very bad initial experience here.

It appears that helpful, researched, on-topic comments are not as welcome in this forum (at least by all the moderators) as I had assumed, so I will just move along and go elsewhere.  It is very ironic that I had just signed up, largely to praise this forum for keeping older threads open so that people can share useful, updated information about older questions.  Instead, when I tried to share some information myself, alansidman seemingly didn't even bother to read my post, and closed the thread, falsely claiming:

"Unfortunately your post does not comply with Rule 2 of our Forum RULES. Do not post a question in the thread of another member -- start your own thread."

By my post was not a new question, no less a [B]new[B] question.  The moderator seemingly didn't bother to read the content.

I had begun my post by quoting a very reasonable moderator.  I wrote:

"Leith Ross said, 'There is a policy in place here at the forum so members can share their thoughts and solutions about older posts.' "

My next sentence was, "I registered partly to say that I like this policy, and often find use from replies that are several years after the original post."

I then followed up with some of my own information *about the existing thread topic* that I found to be useful in regard to that exact topic.  It was not a new question, which is obvious to anyone who actually reads it.

I had found the thread myself by googling it, so I thought that others would probably find the thread that way as well, and so that it was a logical place to congregate *relevant, related information*.  I think if the moderator had bothered to read the post, rather than go off control-tripping the new users, he would have known that no additional question had been asked within my post.  Although I don't know alansidman myself, I do know that some moderators on the Internet, like some police officers, prefer to use their power, such that it is, to harass and control rather than to look out for the greater good.  I hope that's not the case here, but either way, alansidman chose to use his power not to welcome me to the forum but to chastise me and shoo me off the forum -- apparently without bothering to read what I wrote -- so this may be my final post on this forum.

I had decided to add to that thread topic partly because a previous poster, teylyn, had written:

"Zababcd, this question is from 2005. I doubt that the asker will return to see your comment. The only purpose your post serves is an attempt to improve your blog's SEO."

I knew this was incorrect because I myself had found great value from the thread, including from the updated replies.  The post he was referring to there happened to constitute a very good answer to the original thread question.  However, the links were broken, so that was one of the reasons I replied to the thread.  Thanks to moderators like alansidman, however, in the future, people who find you via search engines will just have to live with the old, broken links.  But he least he enjoyed himself, and put me in my place.  Nice job.

I *often* see replies to original posts that come years later that better answer the original questions.  I welcome that, as I explained in my post, and I was *praising the policy of this forum of welcoming that*.  It is very important to allow people to post follow-ups to old topics because often the best answers come years later.  If this forum has a new policy banning that, then I will avoid this forum.

alansidman either has better ideas about this, or he enjoys power-tripping new users, or he doesn't read the posts he moderates, or or, possibly even, he is not familiar with the forum rules himself.

The original poster has nothing to do with the later answers.  This is a help forum that people often discover via search engines.  So, the later responses are for the benefit not of the original poster, but of those who find the thread later.  If you senselessly close topics for no reason because you like to feel like you're doing something, you send a useful, living thread to a premature death.  No one was spamming or writing anything offensive.  We were simply adding some follow-up notes for the benefit of those who would discover the thread later.

Some moderators get so wrapped up in forumland that they forget that a forum is not just for the benefit of the little clique of active posters.  A forum is also meant to educate that wider circle, some of whom might later join your forum -- although they are unlikely to when you treat them like this.

The topic of that thread is obscure enough that it makes no sense to open a new topic simply to share a few random additions that are relevant mainly to *that* topic.  The moderator's actions serve no purpose other than to alienate a new user, and to clutter the forum with lots of new little posts that in fact belong in other topics.

If I misunderstood the policy of this forum, which I was praising, then I would now like to criticize the policy of this forum.  I suspect, however, that it may be the moderator himself who fails to understand the policy of the forum.  (If he actually read my post.)  At the very least, there appears to be some disagreement between the moderators about what the purpose, goals, and policies of this forum ought to be.  I, obviously, stand firmly with those who say that there is often merit to adding new information to older posts.  I use Excel and I speak from experience in browsing forums that this is absolutely critical to maintaining high quality for a topic.  It makes no sense to start a new thread about an identical topic simply because a few years have past.  Why should I have to search through 10 different threads about the same topic?  That's just crazy.

alansidman has brushed me off, and I'm now a little leery of how this forum is run, so I will probably be going elsewhere in the future to share my thoughts.  I do think at the very least however that moderators ought to *read* the actual content of a post and respond to that, whatever the rules of a forum may be.  I at least *tried* to add some helpful, on-topic information to an existing thread, based on my interpretation of forum policies, and alansidman decided that what was most important was some sort of seemingly arbitrary policing of the forums instead.  I took the time to sign up for the forum; you could at least write a response that doesn't sound like a form letter response to some completely unrelated post.

If you want more context about this, the original thread is here:

https://www.excelforum.com/excel-pro...om-vba-vb.html

This is for you guys to sort out.  I don't want to get into a big, ongoing discussion of this.  I came, I saw, I liked.  And now I have a new, different impression, and so I'm taking off.  But perhaps someone there will find some merit in something here that I have brought to your attention.  It's your forum.  You can run it however you like.  I know what is useful to me as an Excel user, but sometimes a forum may have different, overlapping goals, of which only one is to help Excel users to find the best information available.

Take care,
Dan

----------


## Speshul

You resurrected a 5 year old thread, 99.999% of the times that happens and the post is a longer text post with a bunch of links, it's someone asking another question and breaking the rule described. 

*Moderators are busy:*
_Threads: 807,980
Posts: 3,779,124
Members: 941,831_ 


They don't get paid for this.  Give them a break.  People make mistakes.

----------


## scottiex

I noticed that thread and appreciate your attempt to provide a detailed solution with links. If it was me I'd just re-post it in a the forum under tips or whenever seemed appropriate, but i know as a person trying to offer help you aren't getting anything back so I respect your position as outlined.

But I also understand the moderators - they have a list of criteria that are designed to work most of the time to improve the quality of the forum (obviously one can disagree with whether they actually do that or not, but I don't have much of an opinion on that). I don't think this is so much a "power trip" as just obeying the rules they have been given and not wanting to follow a bunch of links from a new user to check if they are being upfront.

----------


## FDibbins

sdanex let me offer you a belated welcome to the forum - and I hope you stick around at least long enough to read - and perhaps respond - on your thread here?

1st, let me apologize on behalf of Alan...note, not FOR him, but on BEHALF of him, in case he doesnt see this, although I will send him a link here.  I have known Alan to be a fair and even-handed mod here for many years, and the ONLY time I have seen a problem involving him, has been where there was some form of mis-understanding, and Im sure that was the case here, too

2nd, we DO welcome additional input on older threads, new heads see things differently, and new tools become available all the time, so this aids in providing a more up-to-date answer to these gold oldies.  What we dont permit, is for members to ask their own questions on someone elses thread, that just invites confusion and other problems that dont need to be introduced.  But that appears not to be the case here.

3rd, even if there was no misunderstanding, and Alan was indeed being heavy handed (which I dont for a second believe was the case) I take exception to you lumping all (most?) of the mods into 1 basket, and slamming the forum for 1 small disagreement that you had.  Perhaps a better approach would have been to discuss and explain the matter with Alan, either in that thread, or in PM, and resolved it there.  I fully accept that it is your right to handle situations as you feel fit.

Regarding the rules and policies of this particular forum - all forums have their own flavor of rules that work for them, ours works for us, and have helped make us 1 of the largest and most active excel help forums on the net.  They have been developed over a number of years and are frequently updated, as the need arises.

On a final note, I would ask that you give us another shot (everyone deserves a 2nd chance, dont they?), and continue to contribute/help/learn along with the rest of us.
I am also going to email a request for you to post a response here, so I hope to hear back from you soon

I would also like to thank you for posting this, and not just leaving.  If we dont know a problem (real or otherwise) exists, then we cannot address it

Thanks
Admin

----------


## rorya

For context, what Leith Ross actually said was this




> There is a policy in place here at the forum so members can share their thoughts and solutions about older posts. *If you find an older post that is relevant to a problem you have then start a new thread and include a link to that thread in your post.*



You missed out the key bold part in your interpretation.

Second, regarding your claim of an overreaction or power-trip, given that your first post resurrected an old thread to post something that included a link to a commercial product, you were lucky you didn't get banned as a spammer, which would have happened in many forums. (it's probably what I'd have done) As Speshul said, moderators are kept pretty busy so generally if your actions fit a typical profile, and yours did, you get a typical response.

Third, you say:





> Although I don't know alansidman myself



but then go on to attribute many negative qualities to him based entirely on one random interaction with him. That is both contradictory and unfair.

Lastly, I should say that I actually agree with your basic premise but _your_ attitude and overreaction here, in my opinion, mean that that is largely lost in translation.

If you're going to abandon a useful forum purely over a trivial incident like this, that would be your loss.

----------


## Doc.AElstein

*sdanex, I hope you see this*..
I expect I think similarly to you regarding posting in older Threads
I lurk/ Google a lot and frequently find a useful older Thread. With the ever increasing number of ( sometimes  very similar ) Threads, I often like to do my bit to add to the more wider usefulness of the Forum by posting a relevant follow up in an older thread, rather than adding another Thread to make a Google search even more time consuming to go through...
*I know that the policy of the Forum is that you can add a solution to an old Thread, even if it is marked as Solved*: I have myself been told this by mods and administrators: It is not everyone’s cup of Tea, - some like to always see a new Thread with a link to any relevant old one. But I have been told it is acceptable, and occasionally some people have encouraged me to do so.

It can, however,  be a fine line sometimes between_..
_... a “Highjack”, asking a different question in an existing Thread, or someone publicising their own sites,  .. spamming.. etc… .._.. 
or , 
_… _ as is acceptable, *adding a solution*. 

If you are pointing out that links no longer work and give  working ones, that is certainly adding a useful follow up and solution. But once again, it could be a fine line , and we do see many cases where some clearly are just taking the chance to publicising their site / products.. etc.. 

All moderators are volunteers and some OP’s are getting very bad these days at not reading rules.. Mods get no credit and very little thanks for all the extra administrative work they do. In addition, most, like Alan Sidman, also help people in Excel, which is often what most really came here to do… and then they simply take on voluntarily the Admin work that most are not really too keen on. But as members they simply take on that burden, or have it “inflicted” on them…  It is often just not possible for them to read all. Time is the enemy of all of us sometimes. 

I have also frequently been said to be Hijacking. It happens less and less. I make a point early on of saying that I am adding a solution. I confess , I do sometimes as well ask a very relevant question when I think an answer to that would really make the Thread better. That is border line as regards the Hijacking rule, - sometimes I get away with it. Usually I am adding a solution simultaneously , so it “fits”, and I am tolerated!! 


Let me say again what Ford said.. thanks for posting and not just leaving. Feedback is becoming very bad these days, and clearly your efforts to post are commendable. You could clearly be a very valuable member , I hope you reconsider and stay with us. We are more tolerant then many. There are Forums where, partly due the time constraints again, you might just of been banned outright by a _ partially automatic spam filtering policy type thing_ or similar


Alan


EdiT: P.s.  I also noticed what rorya pointed out that you did not quote the last bit of what Leith Ross said. I would suggest that that what Leith Ross wrote lies slightly in the grey area, or personal preference area,  and is Leith Ross’s interpretation of the Forum Policy:
You could just as well say, in my opinion, : _There is a policy in place here at the forum so members can share their thoughts and solutions about older posts. If you find an older post that is relevant to a problem, you can add a Solution. It might be advisable at the outset to say that you are adding a solution, rather than asking a question. – Moderators, all volunteers,  are very busy and do not always have time to read an entire Post and it may appear at first glance that you are highjacking ( asking a question in someone else's Thread)_

----------


## sdanex

I suspected that this might turn into a more protracted discussion.  Obviously I made a fairly long post myself, so that is on me.

I don't have lots and lots of finer points to elaborate on regarding this topic.  My general view is: a) leave helpful posts and threads alone, and b) don't make new users feel bad about trying to contribute.

I appreciate that the replies here to me were respectful, so that was welcome.  I wasn't trying to single any one out.  I think there is confusion about both the rules and about how important it is to be OCD about them, especially regarding new users who clearly are trying to be constructive.

I still don't understand what the policies of this forum are, even now, even having read both the rules and several interpretations of the rules.

However, I don't see anything that suggests that following up on old threads is not allowed.  And if that is a policy, it is wrong, because it is counterproductive.

If the policy really is that people should generally start a whole new thread simply to add some follow-up, then that defeats part of the point of a thread in the first place -- which is to keep related information in the same place.

When I find a useful thread via an internet search, then having to search to find 10 other threads -- in the same forum, no less -- about the exact same topic is a real pain, and to me rather senseless.

The way that search engines work (and let's be realistic, most people are using Google although I don't like to pitch it because it has grown to be too powerful and intrusive), the more relevant a web page or thread, the more likely that it will come up as a search result.  So if you have one very relevant thread, that is much more likely to pop up in a search.  If you have 10 semi-relevant short threads, it is likely that no one will see any of them.  In fact, what is likely is that a more relevant thread at one of your "competitor" sites will come up -- not that I view this as a competition, necessarily.

A really well-run forum should serve multiple purposes.  One of those of course is to foster the camaraderie of the locals, so to speak, but another is that the regulars are able to help to nurture a discussion that outsiders will find to be useful.  Most people who visit a forum are not going to turn into regular participants.  If the goal is to provide a cliquey social circle, then the rules are different than if the goal is to project helpful information to the outside that others can find and utilize.

If a regular sees a post to a thread from years ago, and he is tired of that thread, then why not simply *skip it and move on*?  Someone spent some time to post follow-up thoughts that he thought that others might find useful.  That person likely had other things that he could be doing.  It bothers me for instance when a poster chastises a user just because he's new or posts a link, assuming the worst motives.  If you want to criticize, then at least figure out what the poster is referring to first.  He may or may not be simply trying to hype his web site.

I had found here a relatively obscure topic, having been disappointed at how hard it was to find good information about that topic.  I found one thread here that seemed to have more content than most of the others, and so I decided to express appreciation by adding a contribution to that thread.

I don't get paid for doing that, either!  Sometimes you try to do something that you think will be helpful to others.  When you're chided for that and told that you aren't following the rules -- by someone who seemingly hasn't even read what you wrote -- you move on.  I'm not lumping all moderators together.  This is a moderator that you trust to help oversee your site.  If you want the users to act constructively, then the moderators should act constructively.  If you say that moderators are not perfect, then be more lenient with *new users*, for chrissake.

The incident reminded me of some other incidents that I've experienced, so that didn't help.

For instance, one time I made a contribution to Wikipedia.  I found a really, really bad article stub on a topic that should have had at least some real content, and spent several hours creating a better skeleton so that it was much more useful to people, and now a starting point for further contribution.  But instead of accept the changes -- the article was, at least, much better than before -- the moderator at Wikipedia did nothing but complain about what the article lacked, and then literally commanded me that if I wanted this article to stand, I needed to make X, Y, and Z changes to it.  I said forget it.  This is not my full-time job.  I was not compensated in any way for improving the article.  I ran smack into a low-level Wikipedia overseer who was drunk on the power that came with overseeing some little village in the larger Wikipedia realm.  The entire point of Wikipedia of course is that the public and interested people can help to foster articles via small changes over time.  The *entire reason* that the article remained (and probably would remain) a stub is that the person overseeing that area misunderstood his role.  It was a topic that I had only tangential interest in, yet I spent several hours working on it.  That way the next person who visited would get more than a stub.  But what this overseer wanted was for me to drop everything and spend two days on the article.  As though it was my deepest life passion.  He said, "if you want the article to be ___" then do this.  But I said, if you want the article to be *better*, then stop being so ridiculous.  The perfect is the enemy of the good.

So here, I simply was adding to a thread in a forum that I have myself used, fostering the type of thread that I as an Excel *user* (but *forum outsider*) have appreciated time and again.  I have learned 1000 things about Excel from online resources.  If you're asking something like, how do I copy and paste a cell using VBA, there are hundreds of pages out there to answer the question.  If, however, you are asking, how do I modify a bitmap image using VBA, then there are only a tiny handful of threads out there about the topic, and so they are hard to find.  To me, *clearly* the best approach for following up on a topic like that is to add comments to an existing page and topic.  One of the other threads on that topic in this very forum was indeed a *new* topic that contained only a question, with no follow-up responses.  A thread with only a single post that is a follow-up to another thread?  Confusing.  Unhelpful.  You wind up with stranded threads that are single questions with no answers, and stranded threads that are single answers, without the original questions attached.  What to do then?  It's like creating a whole new function (or even object) in VBA when there is already one there.  You are more likely to have to recreate all the variables or whatever, and repeat steps (explanations).

Even if the question is how do I copy and paste, there are many answers.  Just because you have a *different answer* doesn't mean your answer deserves its own thread.  That is unnecessarily confusing.  What, create a new thread and link to all the previous threads on the topic?  Why?

Although I didn't mention it before, I also added a reply to the thread that had the stranded question, simply providing a link to the larger thread that had more information.  That wasn't for the benefit of the original poster (or for the clique of forum regulars), but for people who found that thread later via a search.


So, just for reference, since people keep referring to these mysterious forum rules, below is a snappy version of the current rules, without the added elaboration.

You can easily see that I didn't break the rule cited, which was #2 (since I wasn't asking a question).

Indeed, had I started a new thread, I would have violated rule #5, which is, "Don't duplicate threads."

My actual post might have violated rule #13a, since one of the blog posts I cited also provided additional source code for a fee, but I disclosed that in the post.

This is a forum, not a military exercise.  I think that these rules should be taken as guidelines, but that the overall goal is to be civilized and helpful.

If you are overly draconian in interpreting the rules rather than simply thinking about what is helpful, then you are doing something worse, and violating the entire spirit of the forum.


Here is the snappy version of the rules --


1. Use concise, accurate thread titles.

2. Don't post a question in the thread of another member -- start your own.

3. Use code tags around code.

4. Don't Private Message or email Excel questions to moderators or other members.

5. Don't duplicate threads.

6a. Feedback Rule: Be responsive - provide feedback to suggested solutions and take the time to thank those who took their time to help you

6b. Common courtesy is required in all posts public/private, at all times.

7a. Don't ignore requests by Administrators, Moderators, or senior members of the forum.

7b. Do not post a reply in a thread where a moderation request (e.g., title change, code tags) is still pending a response.

8. Don't cross-post without a link.

9. (rule retired to suggestion)

10. (rule retired)

11. Don't post questions regarding breaking or bypassing any security measure.

12. Don't quote whole posts -- it's just clutter.

13a. Do not put links to commercial sites or services or to competing forums in signatures and posts.

13b. Do not put links to personal sites or services as your sole contribution here on the forum.

13c. Do not solicit payments in your posts or signatures.


Indeed, 13a reads almost as ambiguously as the 2nd amendment.  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What the heck does that mean?  A well regulated militia?  It is pretty difficult not to "put links to commercial sites or services"!  Does that mean that you can't post a link to any dot-com that brings in revenue from advertising?  I mean, heck, Microsoft is a commercial site.  You can't include links to a Microsoft Excel page?

But to get back to the original discussion, I think that if a poster, particularly a new poster, appears to be trying to be helpful and informative, then why not give him a little bit of leeway.

Even going over the rules with a fine tooth comb, I don't know what I'm supposed to do.  I think that one of the rules could be that moderators will try their best to respect intentions rather than over-meddling just to over-meddle.

My feeling about my post was that it was potentially helpful, whereas the response to it was cold and illogical, and based on a reading of rules that was overly strict.  But, hey, like I said, that may be an aberration for the forum, and even for the moderator.  I pointed out something that I saw as wrong, just like the moderator pointed out to me something that he thought was wrong.

And finally, before this gets really out of control -- I really don't want to get too much more distracted with all of this -- I want to reply to something that FDibbins said:





> even if there was no misunderstanding, and Alan was indeed being heavy handed (which I dont for a second believe was the case) I take exception to you lumping all (most?) of the mods into 1 basket, and slamming the forum for 1 small disagreement that you had



I tried to be clear that I don't lump all moderators into one category, and that being new here I don't (even now) know alansidman's regular tendencies.

I said that "some moderators on the Internet, like some police officers, prefer to use their power, such that it is, to harass and control rather than to look out for the greater good."

My very first post here included praise for Leith Ross, a moderator.

I stand by that praise.  

In fact, in reference to that, rorya said that I had missed a "key" part of his reply, but in fact people keep missing *that I was not asking a new question*.

Leith said, "There is a policy in place here at the forum so members can share their thoughts and solutions about older posts. If you find an older post that is relevant to a problem you have then start a new thread and include a link to that thread in your post."

rorya bolded the part about starting a new thread, but could have bolded the following instead: "If you find an older post that is relevant to *a problem you have*".

I don't think that I violated the forum rules so much that like many sets of rules they can be ambiguous.  Yes, I was working on the same problem -- that's why I was reading the thread in the first place, and why most outsiders come here to read threads -- however, I was not asking a new question.  I did not have an immediate problem that I was asking anyone to solve.  Indeed, the main purpose of my post was to add my thoughts, ideas, and research to an existing topic.  Starting a new thread to say, "I have something to add to a different thread" seems almost Monty Python in its ludicrousness.

To start a separate, entirely duplicate thread simply to post a follow-up to an existing topic would have been more in violation of forum rules than adding to a relevant, existing thread, even an old one.  As you can see, adding to old threads is nowhere banned by the forum rules.  It may annoy some regulars, but the forum serves purposes other than to be as fun as possible for the regulars.

If I were to take those forum rules completely literally, of course, then if five people are working on the same problem (i.e., for each, "a problem you have"), then each of them should start his own thread about his "own problem."  But I take the rules instead to mean that if you have *a whole new question*, then you should start a brand new thread, in order to keep the topics separate.

As it is, I suppose that if I have the same exact problem as someone else ("a problem you have"), and want to help by posting a link to a Microsoft page (which technically is a "commercial site or service") that helps to answer the main question, then I would be in violation of multiple forum rules, even though my action would seem to be *precisely* what the forum is intended for.

I don't think that the rules need to be perfect.  But when rules are imperfect or unclear, as they usually are, it helps when those who implement them can use some reasonable lenience and discretion.  Does a person appear to be well-intentioned, polite, and helpful?  OK, then work with him.  "Welcome to the forum.  By the way, while there is some disagreement about the forum rules, it is possible that this topic better belongs in its own thread."

(cont.)

----------


## sdanex

(from previous post)

The fate of some galactic republic does not hinge on our following each of these rules to a tee.

I do believe that if you want brand new users to thoroughly read over the forum rules -- which seems overly optimistic -- and if you want to then cite these forum rules when chastising users, *then try to make sure that the rules are crystal clear*.

I do appreciate the respectful responses, and have a good one,
Dan

p.s. As one small aside, and I'm sure that this has been discussed elsewhere, sometimes when I compose a post -- like right now -- I am getting this Courier, fixed width font in a box that does not use word wrapping (so each line goes out of the box, and I have to scroll to see the rest of the text).  In particular since this is a technically-oriented help forum about software, I think that this issue is something that may be worth addressing.  I know, this off-topic tangent probably violates some rule or another.  But I'm tacking it on, since we are discussing the forum (and besides, I don't want to get into a whole new topic about the forum, either here or elsewhere!)

p.p.s. My last post was a thousand characters or so too long.  Perhaps I'm violating some other rule by posting it in two parts...

----------


## sdanex

Another thought just occurred to me, that it might be useful if forum software had a way to allow a user to contribute something to an old thread without necessarily making that topic fresh again.  The contributor and the moderator could see it, and people who search would see the reply, but there's no reason that an old topic actually has to become a hot topic again.

Edit to add however that Excel doesn't change rapidly enough that it makes a great deal of difference whether a topic was *started* today or started five years ago.  Most of the functionality of the software is the same now as it was then.  Occasionally, there may be new and better ways to perform a task.  But replying to an old post is not like replying to an old topic about how to fundraise for a political campaign from 2014 or something like that.  So I don't think there is a major problem with "resurrecting" old threads that are still relevant to users today.

----------


## sdanex

One final thought.  I think what really happens sometimes is that a user violates not a stated rule but rather the culture of a forum.  One unstated rule may be, don't bring old threads back to life.

If you imagine that the topic is a recent topic, then probably there is no issue here.  There is nothing in the rules about not replying to old threads, but there may be a general *rule of thumb* that for reasons never quite articulated, this is a bad idea.

If there are rules of thumb that apply to the forum, then perhaps they can either be made clear in the actual rules, or they an be revisited to determine whether they truly make sense.

----------


## FDibbins

1st, thank you for taking the time to come back and comment here, I appreciate that.

2nd, I have stared clearly in my post above (#4) - as have a few other members - that we DO welcome input on old threads, as that seems to be your main concern now (other than Alan's reaction), you can put that concern to rest 



```
Please Login or Register  to view this content.
```


From time to time, a new member starts a discussion about changing this rule or adjusting that rule.  While these suggestions are valued and may have some merit for that member, our rules - as I said above - have evolved to what they are, over a long time, we have to vue them as being for the entire forum, not for individuals.

Finally, welcome back (I hope?) and I hope we see more of you in the forums?

----------


## alansidman

@sdanex

I have read your defense and am impressed with your writing skills.  No sarcasm intended.  Firstly, if I have offended you in any way, let me apologize right now and hopefully, you will not abandon this forum.  You have indicated that you wish to acknowledge that someone has provided you and possibly others with valuable information.  In this forum, we have a reputation system in place that allows you to do that.  Note at the bottom of each posting there is a star and a statement Add Reputation.  This is a way to acknowledge posts.  Additionally, in the sub forum "Water Cooler" there is a sticky thread that you could post to called "Thanks for all the help."  Here is a link to that thread  https://www.excelforum.com/the-water...-the-help.html

I want you to know that as a Moderator, I am not here to be heavy handed but seek to provide helpful information about posting and assisting when possible for issues relating to Access and Excel.   For me, a heavy hand would have been to issue an infraction to you.  I do that only for repeated offenses and especially never to new forum participants.

Further, to your discussion, I wish for you to know that I closed that old thread because I felt as a moderator (we have a difference of opinion here) that your comments were off topic and irrelevant to the solution as well as it being an OLD thread.  It had nothing to do with you, but to keep others from posting additional off - topic responses.

Again, please accept my apology if I have offended you.

Alan

----------


## Pete_UK

The ORIGINAL thread was started in 2005, and probably did not originate in this Forum, as the policy in a lot of other help forums at that time was to automatically pick up and include threads from the old newsgroups.

Pete

----------


## sdanex

Well, again, I appreciate all of the civilized responses.  I will say again that I know my reply was on-topic because that was the topic that I was thinking about when I read the thread, and when I posted the reply.  I still believe that the main reason that the thread was closed was because it was old, and not because anyone actually believed that my reply was off-topic.

I, personally, do not believe in closing threads simply because they are old, but I do know that that is common practice in some (not all, and not the most helpful) forums.

Anyway, I hope that something I have contributed here will be useful for future discussion or for contemplating changes or policies in the future.

Take care,
Dan

----------


## sdanex

To clarify a tiny bit further, there was no _perfect_ solution in that instance.  If the question is, how do I copy and paste, then there is a perfect, on-topic solution, or even several.

But if the question is more out there, like how do I do real-time 3D graphics rendering in Excel, then the topic is going to be a lot fuzzier and less well defined, because there is no great answer to that unusual question.  It may be an interesting question, but this is not something that people try to do very often, so you won't find very many threads on it, and there will be no one great answer.

The question that was asked was similarly a little unconventional, which is why no one had the one right answer, but rather several possible ways to solve the problem given that it is not straightforward to solve.

On-topic, to me, means that a response may help someone find a workaround to a bizarre problem, even if Excel may not be the most obvious tool for the job.

----------


## scottiex

> Well, again, I appreciate all of the civilized responses.  I will say again that I know my reply was on-topic because that was the topic that I was thinking about when I read the thread, and when I posted the reply.  I still believe that the main reason that the thread was closed was because it was old, and not because anyone actually believed that my reply was off-topic.



I think this is a fallacy of single cause. Yes it being old is probably part of what triggered people to be skeptical but you have all of us here giving other contributing causes, including Alan's personal interpretation (which of course, even if not perfect, is the most epistemically privileged one). We can all simultaneously be right to some degree or other.





> I, personally, do not believe in closing threads simply because they are old, but I do know that that is common practice in some (not all, and not the most helpful) forums.



I think Fdibbins covered this well, the forum has a set of rules it feels work. The admins (with many thousands of posts and a lot of discussions) are in a privileged position to your or I as to if that works in general for this forum, although you are in a privileged position in saying if it works FOR YOU. 
Of course our input might be useful for them to keep rechecking their position.

----------


## Doc.AElstein

> ...... welcome back (I hope?) and I hope we see more of you in the forums?



..are you sure about that.. his posts are longer than mine… lol… :Smilie: 
_....
But one small serious point.. If we agree that old Threads should be open for adding a solution… then they need not to be closed… I think..  maybe the criteria for closing a Thread needs to be clarified.. I thought mainly Threads were only closed for some clear violation like a duplicate post or asking for help on breaking or bypassing any security measure  etc.. 
I do not think we have a policy of closing old Threads.?
If someone spams in a Thread, then I think the post is deleted, not the Thread closed. Possibly an alternative response to closing the Thread after sdanex posted would have been to question him in a reply in the Thread as to the relevance of what he posted.. . 

@sdanex
As I mentioned before, I think opinions are split a bit with moderators on resurrecting / posting in old threads. ( Thankfully the world is not boring and people have different opinions ).  I post a lot of follow up solutions. I get criticised by a mod, sometimes quite harshly,  about 1 in 10 times. Maybe you hit the 1 in 10 time by chance on the first post. So do not be put off. 

@Ford or Alan Sidman or whoever…. sdanex appears to have an infraction? Why is that?
sdanexInfraction.JPG http://imgur.com/GRSWlLd 
Edit 28.June, 2017: Ford has sorted it- see later posts

*Alan*
_...



*P.s.*.




> ..._ I am getting this Courier, fixed width font in a box that does not use word wrapping ...
> p.p.s. ___ My last post was a thousand characters or so too long.  Perhaps I'm violating some other rule by posting it in two parts...



_ There are a lot of forum editor bugs like the one you mentioned. They are known about and have been reported, …. if you stick around you will learn that these things don’t get fixed too quickly and you grow to get used to them and the workarounds that we often find. That problem you mentioned often goes away if you edit again or refresh or cancel and start a reply again. The biggest problem/ forum editor bug for people like you and me is that the contents of a Post can suddenly vanish when you do things like edit. So always have a back up copy of long posts. ( I prepare everything in WORD then copy across to the editor)
___ I split my  long posts and I have not had any problems from that.

----------


## scottiex

> ..are you sure about that.. his posts are longer than mine… lol…
> _....



We all have our quirks. I like to think of as many as possible as endearing  :Smilie: 
Speaking of which (and considering this is off topic maybe the minor diversion can be tolerated) - What is the correct interpretation of the meaning of your double full stops and ellipses? Have you actually truncated your thoughts for (relative!) brevity?

----------


## alansidman

> @Ford or Alan Sidman or whoever…. sdanex appears to have an infraction? Why is that?
> sdanexInfraction.JPG http://imgur.com/GRSWlLd



I have checked the moderator forum and found no indication of a warning nor an infraction given.  I suspect but cannot determine (no authorization) if a negative rep was issued by someone.  Perhaps, if Ford or JB check into this thread, then  they can enlighten us.  Or if sdanex wishes to explain as he would have the information in his Control Panel of the forum.

----------


## Doc.AElstein

@Alan Sidman
Thanks Alan, yes, I just thought- it is probably a negative rep, - an infraction is usually indicated as such. That negaive red bit will go away if he gets positive Reps...

@scottiex 
These _.... and similar... are  just my own way of orgnising - somehow they make sense to me - don't ask me why, just a quirk I don't understand myself .. lol.. :Wink: 

@sdanex
just for info: _Control Panel_: *User Control Panel*
..... Just in case  you do not know about this thing: - It is a good thing to check your *U*ser *C*ontrol *P*anel ( UCP, UserCP )   (  https://www.excelforum.com/usercp.php   )     from time to time, especially if you are waiting for replies – occasionally E-mail Notifications of Replies can go astray  , or you may miss them – Your *User Control Panel* keeps you up to date on your Subscribed Threads....( and you see if someone has Rep'd you or Rep'd you and / or commented on a post   )
 http://imgur.com/dQnVdHv 
 http://www.excelforum.com/excel-gene...ml#post4560129 ....
_.....
Edit *P.s.* .  some info for you , sdanex , on Reps ( The excelforum *Reputation giving system*, which is a way I often use to show appreciation to the author of a Post that I find helpful):
(You must be logged in to give Rep Points. Make sure the Button _I approve_ is checked 
http://www.excelforum.com/tips-and-t...653post4483653 
http://imgur.com/VxNJ6Zf 
http://imgur.com/J0LGBAu 
http://imgur.com/mcllLJI
http://www.excelforum.com/excel-prog...ml#post4435143 
Do NOT do this (unless you really think it is justified): http://imgur.com/pwT1JH0

----------


## FDibbins

> @Ford or Alan Sidman or whoever…. sdanex appears to have an infraction? Why is that?
> sdanexInfraction.JPG http://imgur.com/GRSWlLd



I looked in the admin log and there were 2 neg reps applied here (doesnt matter by whom).  I have removed them both, and they were both applied to the initial (old) thread that triggered this, and I dont believe they were justified (in this case)

----------


## sdanex

> But one small serious point.. If we agree that old Threads should be open for adding a solution… then they need not to be closed… I think..  maybe the criteria for closing a Thread needs to be clarified..



I did regret that my post in a thread I had found useful resulted in that thread being closed, which was the opposite of my goal.  Even if my own post was somehow off-topic or inappropriate, then why should the result of that be that a good thread (one that I at least had found useful) be closed for further, more sensible, and less recklessly off-topic contributions?

In other words, if I wrote a post that was way out of line, then _I_ should be the one who is held responsible -- scolded, placed on a watchlist, publicly flogged, or banned -- but for the love of all that is good and decent, leave the thread in peace!

----------


## sdanex

I did log into the Control Panel to check it out.  I have to admit to being a little disappointed at losing my reputation for a little shameless behavior in the past.  Probably not an inaccurate description.

----------


## scottiex

> In other words, if I wrote a post that was way out of line, then _I_ should be the one who is held responsible -- scolded, placed on a watchlist, publicly flogged, or banned -- but for the love of all that is good and decent, leave the thread in peace!



Have to love your passion  :Smilie:

----------


## Oppressed1

I may misunderstand the gist of the "start a new post policy" but here's a general statement.

The benefit of updating old posts, rather than starting new ones, is that sometimes Google searches land on an errant or obsolete old post, and that may be ALL that the search user reads on the matter. He/she may very well never or very rarely click "see other results from xlforum.com."

Example: I google for an error message and get a six year old xlforum thread.

A. The thread has bogus advice or solution. I find that out an hour later after pursuing false trails. I'd rather correct it right there, so future googlers don't waste time on the false trail.

B. I find an exception or specific constraint on a correct answer - e.g. I find that something doesn't work on Windows 7, or if you have any chart sheets, etc. . I'd rather correct it right there, so future googlers don't waste time on the false trail.

C. Updating links - same idea.

----------


## FDibbins

> I did log into the Control Panel to check it out.  I have to admit to being a little disappointed at losing my reputation for a little shameless behavior in the past.  Probably not an inaccurate description.



I have already fixed that  :Smilie:

----------


## FDibbins

> I may misunderstand the gist of the "start a new post policy" but here's a general statement.
> 
> The benefit of updating old posts, rather than starting new ones, is that sometimes Google searches land on an errant or obsolete old post, and that may be ALL that the search user reads on the matter. He/she may very well never or very rarely click "see other results from xlforum.com."
> 
> Example: I google for an error message and get a six year old xlforum thread.
> 
> A. The thread has bogus advice or solution. I find that out an hour later after pursuing false trails. I'd rather correct it right there, so future googlers don't waste time on the false trail.
> 
> B. I find an exception or specific constraint on a correct answer - e.g. I find that something doesn't work on Windows 7, or if you have any chart sheets, etc. . I'd rather correct it right there, so future googlers don't waste time on the false trail.
> ...



OK, Im really not sure how many different ways I need to say this before it gets understood?

We have NO problem with older threads being updated with new suggestions - the problem arises when other questions are being asked on some-one elses thread, but that would be a problem with any thread, not just older threads.  I have said this at least 3 times, and Im sure others have said the same thing, so based on that, I think this thread has now had its run, I am now closing this

----------

