During a discussion on web standards, I cited an article on Mike Davidson's blog. Someone disagreeing with the points I raised retorted with:
You can't really refer to a 4 year old article on this.
Ha! What does the age of an article have to do with things? Are books written by Zeldman and Meyer irrelevant after a couple of years? Does all good practice change after a few years? Of course not - marquee and blink tags were a bad idea even back when popular, and anyone with a modicum of understanding about the web knew that. Table layouts and font tags were a good idea in the abscence of the more structured CSS model, and are only now bad practice because there is something far superior to replace them.
So the specific details of web design can evolve with time, as can design philosophies. However, it does not mean that every thought a designer (or anyone else, for that matter) had pre-2004 is invalid. To suggest otherwise is, quite frankly, idiotic and ignores the knowledge and wisdom gained through sticking with and evolving a craft over time.
Mike's post still raises some very valid points. By all means disagree with him (and me!) and put up a reasoned counter argument, but simply dismissing the views out of hand because of the age of a blog post is closed minded and will limit your understanding of the subject.
We all know that as with any other gathering, forums tend to form a hierarchy amongst the members. Regular members often inadvertently form almost impenetrable cliques, and it is only after a period of induction that a new member is 'allowed' to feel welcome.
You can usually easily recognise clique members. They have far more posts than seems healthy, and tend to keep those 30-page threads going. They often develop a sub-culture and language, full of in-jokes like a bad middle class BBC comedy that a casual browser would not understand. Wannabe clique members - those on the periphery of the group - tend to gravitate around the main participants and post inanities, desperately hoping for and hanging onto a reply or even acknowledgment of existence.
With the possible exception of two forums in the past, I've never been one to join the cliques. Maybe it's my inner punk, but I just can't stomach the relentless arse-licking and dumbing down of free thought required to be an active member of such a clique. It's far more fun posting freely and honestly about what I feel than agreeing with the main protagonists for the sake of social harmony.
And so this brings me to a new member on a forum I frequent. She joined and asked for feedback on a variety of aspects of a couple of web sites she commissioned. She didn't join in any other discussions, although did respond to some of the issues raised about her sites.
Different people visit forums for different reasons. Some visit to post in "What are you listening to" and "Word Association" threads, whereas others visit once or twice for coding or design advice. Not sticking around does not in itself make someone a spammer
Of course, the poster in question may well have joined in the hope of garnering new members. However, as she actually engaged in conversation rather than the usual post-a-press-releas-and-go approach of spammers, I would give her the benefit of the doubt.
