<p>What's wrong with reviving dead threads? At least the revivers have the sense to look something up before starting a new thread. I would rather have one thread about AMC/AIME than hundreds of threads.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And the forum moderators here apparently aren't the kind to put revived, should-be-dead threads back in their place, either.
[/quote]
Yeah, apparently not. :p</p>
<p>I can always split threads if someone necroposts something interesting that doesn't need the context of the original thread; in this case, the old thread isn't that long, so I didn't feel it was a huge deal.</p>
<p>
It's considered poor forum etiquette (netiquette); the longer it's been since previous activity, the worse the offense. A look over this thread also reveals that the same things are being asked, and the same answers are being provided. The reviver may have been sensible in finding a thread of relevant content, but that's exactly why it shouldn't be revived. All the information one would want to know directly related to the thread title has been asked and adequately answered (hence the thread dying). If there's any variation to a question you want to pose (making it new), a new thread is appropriate.</p>
<p>Honestly, if the reviver -had- started a new topic, you probably wouldn't have noticed this one already existed, nor would you chastise the reviver for creating a new thread when the last one was a whopping three years ago. We're not talking about a new AMC thread three days after an old AMC thread was made. We're talking three years.</p>
<p>Of all places, [url=<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necroposting%5DWikipedia%5B/url">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necroposting]Wikipedia[/url</a>] explains it best.</p>
<p>Reviver Speaketh: Wow! I never imagined such a commotion would come about by just reviving a mere thread. Firstly, to go and hunt for such a thread, my intention was blatantly obvious (or so I thought); to use pre-existing posted information. But, seeing that the thread was over three years old, I, being a totaly n00b thought that it would be appropriate if I asked again as that information might be outdated (due to changes in pattern of the test, level of questions or any reason whatsoever.) Personally, I thought it'd be better to put forward the question in a pre-existing thread than spam the place with duplicates, but that was just me. Personally, I think the sole reason for the three year old thread continuing to exist is that threads asking the same questions are not asked again and all the information can be listed under one thread. Personally, I find it rather funny (can't think of any word more appropriate) that krypto got so hyped about it. As for net etiquette, forgive me, I totally acknowledge my n00b-ness to forums and stuff of this order. Again, in my opinion, it was totally not wring to revive the forum. Nevertheless, if someone got offended, felt that it was wrong, uncouth... whatever, my sincerest apologies to him/ her. May your thread rest in peace. And cut the conflict! PEACE!</p>
<p>It's not spam when the old thread is impossible to find without use of the "search" function.</p>
<p>And threads with valid content are never deleted; they just die/become inactive. By your logic, new threads should rarely be started, as a majority of topics have already been covered by some thread in the past. Since they all still exist (though they cannot be found without searching, as they could be years old), then they should all apparently be revived. Ridiculous, right?</p>
<p>Lastly, I'm not offended. I'm just used to forums that enforce netiquette. Forums that will lock an inactive thread once it is revived (in some forums, if it is inactive even only for a week) and warn the reviver. Given the nature of CC, though, it's expected that such rules aren't emphasized.</p>
<p>Despite that, I still happen to feel that reviving a thread that has been dead for six times as long as you have existed (as a member) is incredibly silly.</p>
<p>kyrpotonosa: Agreed on just about all counts, but if you really wanted to bring about change in the way this particular forum is maintained, I think there are better ways to do it than snarking about the moderators...</p>
<p>1) I'm not trying to bring about change. Reviving a three-years-dead thread is just obscene whether or not a forum has rules about such things.</p>
<p>2) It wasn't a snark (as evidenced by me not actually trying to change anything). It was an observation.</p>
<p>3) I'm starting to think you're misspelling "krypton" on purpose. :p</p>
<p>How about a score of 90.0? I mean, it is not a great score and won't help, but it won't hurt and is better than not writing it at all, right?</p>
<p>It's not too bad of a score, and I doubt writing it would hurt you...If that's on the AMC 12, answer two more questions correctly next year and you'll make AIME...:D</p>
<p>My position has always been that any AMC/AIME score is worth writing -- not everybody takes these tests, after all.</p>
<p>What if you got 125+ on AMC12 and7+ on AIME, but you didn't do well on SAT Critical Reading and Writing.</p>
<p>remember, it is the overall picture that counts.
Those AMC and AIME scores are great, but you can't count on them to get you in. And MIT admissions isn't an number adding game. Scores for EVERYTHING combined only counts for so much. It is irrelevant to use your math contest scores to make up for your SAT scores. they are different things.
What sets you apart? is it your personality? your ways of pursuing interests? using up all the opportunities provided to you? not giving up on something you love? what is it that makes you You?</p>
<p>if you dont have any of these competitions, will that kill your chances of admissions?</p>
<p>No. I and a good proportion of the MIT student population have never participated in a single math competition.</p>
<p>Same here. MIT Admissions isn't looking for one particular thing (ie "We'll only look at the AIME people.") for acceptance. I'm sure AMC/AIME help, but a lot of other things help too =D.</p>
<p>thank goodness
i was freaking out because i have 0 of these tests; actually, i hadnt heard about them until recently.
so PiperXP and kryptonsa36, what did you have that made you stand out?</p>
<p>It's been noted many times, in many threads, that many MIT applicants have never even heard of these competitions until they see the question on the application. It's also true that AdComs have said not to worry at all if you're one of these students; the tests/competitions are in no way required.</p>
<p>Even the application says not to worry if you don't know what its asking for in the spot where you can submit AMC/AIME scores.</p>
<p>
[quote]
so PiperXP and kryptonsa36, what did you have that made you stand out?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For me personally, it was probably flying planes and riding horses, plus dedication to community service. I think my essays were pretty good, too - they were incredibly heartfelt (though I wonder if admissions thought they were sappy...).</p>
<p>(At first I wrote riding planes and flying horses, oh boy...)</p>
<p>So should I even bother specifying a 97.5 AMC and 5 AIME? Haha, they're pretty mediocre scores ..</p>