I object to the rampant archiving of old threads

We’ve got an incredible resource of articulate and knowledgeable posters here whose pooled dialogues on weighty issues are valuable and significant. Hell, institutional memory has great intrinsic value on its own. And yet, as demonstrated in these threads, large swathes of past discussions are apparently being off-loaded from the searchable database, perhaps never to return. What’s the point of a message board dedicated to fighting ignorance, if the ignorance-fighting disappears down the memory hole?

I guess I’d like some assurance from those mods and administrators who know something of the matter that every effort will be made to bring the archived threads back online as soon as it becomes feasible to do so. I’d also like some explanation as to which threads are chosen to be archived, as well as the exact limitations of the search engine (as it sometimes seems to be unable to pull up old threads that nevertheless still exist in the database).

Second this.

[QUOTE=Gadarene]
I object to the rampant archiving…
[/QUOTE]

Archiving isn’t the whole problem here. As discussed here, a search for OP’s by BrainGlutton turns up nothing before 12/2005. Yet if you search for POSTS by BrainGlutton, you’ll turn up threads started by him before that date.

That’s a database problem, not the result of archiving.

I agree. And, as I mentioned in my OP, clarification regarding the limitations of the search engine and/or database—specifically regarding posters’ inability to search for existing, unarchived threads—would be very helpful as well.

I dunno. I guess I’ve never had the opinion that anything I said would be enshrined in stone forever. These are discussions – conversations, IMO – that I never expected to be any less ephemeral than any other conversation I’ve had. Others have different expectations, apparently.

And much as I respect you, Gad, I don’t think you or anyone else is entitled to assurances that “every effort” is being made to get things to work as you want them to, or to any explanation as to what gets archived, where, when, or why. This is the Reader’s Board, not ours. And it’s not even the Reader’s highest priority, as a couple of your linked threads makes explicit.

I never said I was entitled to it. I said I’d like it. Maybe if a hell of a lot of us say we’d like it, they’ll provide it.

I’d also like a pony.

[QUOTE=Jodi]
And much as I respect you, Gad, I don’t think you or anyone else is entitled to assurances that “every effort” is being made to get things to work as you want them to, or to any explanation as to what gets archived, where, when, or why.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see why he shouldn’t, he’s a paying customer, isn’t he? I don’t necessarily mind so much that the staff isn’t improving the site with the over one hundred thousand dollars that we’ve given them over the years**. I do mind being treated like a parasite, instead of like a customer.

They are removing content from the service that I pay for, I think I have the right to question that before signing up for another year.

** 4,000 members, $10/yr/member average fee, 3 years of subscriptions.

[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
I don’t see why he shouldn’t, he’s a paying customer, isn’t he? I don’t necessarily mind so much that the staff isn’t improving the site with the over one hundred thousand dollars that we’ve given them over the years**. I do mind being treated like a parasite, instead of like a customer.
[/quote]

They are removing content from the service that I pay for, I think I have the right to question that before signing up for another year.

I don’t see how or where anyone is treating you like a parasite; maybe I just don’t know what you mean. And, sure, you have the right to question them, just like you have the right to question why your favorite restaurant took your favorite meal off the menu, before you give them one more dime. That doesn’t mean they have an obligation to explain themselves to you. But I freely admit I might feel differently if I cared about archived threads, but I don’t. Which, come to think of it, begs the question as to why I’m in this thread at all. So like a tree, I leaf.

Jodi, you don’t see the value in preserving all the wonderfully detailed and nuanced legal debates you’ve had on this board over the last few years?

If there’s a Great Debate thread about the availability of habeas relief to Guantanamo detainees that goes on for four pages and features thoughtful contributions from some of the Dope’s best legal minds, and then a newbie posts a similar question a year and a half later, wouldn’t it strike you as unfortunate if the prior discussion was no longer available as a reference point?

To your first question: no, not really. I’m mostly full of hot air. This isn’t false modesty; I just speak to blithely and off-the-cuff here – not to mention occasionally too much in anger and sarcasm — to be really comfortable with having my words enshrined in cyberspace somewhere.

To your second question: Yeah, probably. The thing is, the noobs ask the same questions anyway. It’s not like the existence of an archived thread ever provides The Definitive Answer. For those who weren’t privvy to the first 60 discussions on a particular topic, they don’t want a link to a 12-page discussion they weren’t in, they want a new discussion, a 61st discussion, one they can participate in. The completely legitimate newbie answer to “we already discussed that” is “well, I wasn’t here then.”

I’m not suggesting that an archived thread would provide The Definitive Answer, any more than the existence of prior caselaw on a topic in one jurisdiction precludes visitation of similar or even identical issues in another. But the old threads would be supremely helpful, certainly, as a resource and a reference point.

Again, this message board is somewhat unique, for a non-partisan, unaffiliated forum, in that it can be said to have a mission: the fighting of ignorance. I think that’s a worthy aim, and I think it’s ill-served by vanishing prior threads without any seeming rhyme or reason.

Archiving turns the SDMB from a library into a magazine rack.

Unfortunately, the software that runs the SDMB can only handle so many posts in the database. We’ve hit that limit, which means that in order to keep this place running, old posts have to be removed.

If this is true, then (a) it would have been nice for the admins to let us know ahead of time, instead of waiting for posters to find out on their own; and (b) I’d like to respectfully request that the archiving of old threads be confined as much as possible to fora that are not General Questions and Great Debates.

[QUOTE=Jodi]
And much as I respect you, Gad, I don’t think you or anyone else is entitled to assurances that “every effort” is being made to get things to work as you want them to, or to any explanation as to what gets archived, where, when, or why. This is the Reader’s Board, not ours. And it’s not even the Reader’s highest priority, as a couple of your linked threads makes explicit.
[/QUOTE]

There’s also the bit that when we were first asked to start paying our own way, one of the benefits that was dangled in front of us was “ability to search the massive SDMB database.” It’s still there now. Check out the thread on “why we require subscriptions” in ATMB.

While technically I suppose you can take away 90% of the existing threads and still leave the “ability” to search the database, I think it’s a bit of false advertising. The “SDMB database” as we knew it before agreeing to pay money in part to be able to search was not crumbling and subject to periodic, random slash-and-burns. It’s false advertising and/or bait and switch to offer the ability to search the database, and afterward cripple the database.

I know you guys are sick of hearing me yammer on, but if I may monopolize the conversation just a little more, I’d like to add that I hear rumours of some folks who, get this, pay their dues year after year just to have access to the search function! Of course, since they almost never post you’d never know it, but that’s what I hear.

Presumably a systematic reduction in quality of the one thing they’re paying for would cause much (quiet) consternation and (unnoticed) lapsing of memberships, which would be very sad, because paying lurkers are, uh, …collectable? And shiny! Also, they add A Certain Something!

So please, remember to think of the lurker members. Just don’t type at them, they startle easily.

[QUOTE=Gadarene]
If this is true, then (a) it would have been nice for the admins to let us know ahead of time, instead of waiting for posters to find out on their own; and (b) I’d like to respectfully request that the archiving of old threads be confined as much as possible to fora that are not General Questions and Great Debates.
[/QUOTE]
I fully agree with your OP, and with the first part of this post.

When the Board first went to a user-pays system, all the threads were still there. When we were first asked to cough up money, we had access to all the old threads, and the possibility that this might change was never even mentioned.

Also, when threads began to be archived, i don’t remember it ever being announced up front. The first i heard of it was when people began to complain about no longer being able to find old threads. And since then, we’ve had vague promises that maybe the old threads will be brought back in a different form, along with periodic reminders that this is far from certain, and we’re just going to have to like it or lump it. Pretty craptastic attitude, in my opinion.

Also, as others have also pointed out, the ability to search the database is a key lure for new member.

I know that some people say that this is a software and/or database issue, and that the size of the Dope is simply too large now. But aren’t there bigger boards out there, boards that have even more content than us?

As for your last point about GQ and GD, i’m going to respectfully disagree. While i think those fora would be well worth saving, someone who spends most of his or her time in Cafe Society might not want to sacrifice all the excellent discussions about art and culture either. Hell, even the Pit has had its share of excellent debates over the years, with swearing! That’s something that should be worth saving.

I think this is a problem that should be addressed on a board-wide basis, not selectively among the different fora.

[QUOTE=jainsafel]
I know you guys are sick of hearing me yammer on, but if I may monopolize the conversation just a little more
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, at three posts in four years, I was just about to tell you to STFU.

I, too, agree with the OP. These lost threads are like old personal letters or diary entries to me. Even if they aren’t brilliant or informative, they are mine, and they are my milestones over the last five years, and these last five years have been rather eventful, to put it mildly. The threads in which I first flirted with the guy who was later to become my fiance? Lost.
The threads in which I first heard myself say my old relationship wasn’t as fantastic as I had always claimed? Gone.
The threads in which I first flirted with the guy who was later to become my fiance? Lost.

[QUOTE=Rysto]
Unfortunately, the software that runs the SDMB can only handle so many posts in the database. We’ve hit that limit, which means that in order to keep this place running, old posts have to be removed.
[/QUOTE]
Are you sure about this? According to www.bigboards.com, the largest current vBulletin forum (offtopic.com) currently has 69,850,793 posts and 160,836 members; about ten times more posts than here. I’m not sure if they’re archiving older threads or not, but I’d be surprised if they were. The problem here, I suspect, is lack of investment in hardware, and lack of software upgrades.