Your favourite cookbooks

HOLsale

Queenie wrote:

Your post is here under the thread The Most Useful Cookery Book Ever heading.

Only BG's' can *merge* threads of similar themes and I've recently read that we are not to bump up "older" threads.

HTH

thanks!

i had no idea there were 2 threads running!

Queenie

HOLsale wrote:

thanks!

i had no idea there were 2 threads running!

No need to feel both of those threads date back to last year and could potentially have been merged by the BG's anyway. I'm just delighted I located your thread because there are some great recommendations and links within that post and I may have missed it otherwise

Curry_Queen

mossy wrote:

For anyone thats thinking of buying The Dinner Lady by Jeanette Orrey The book people currently have it in their sale section 2 books for £7 or 4 books for £12. I've ordered two copies one for me and one for my bessie mate as a birthday present and got both books for £10.50 inc postage which is much cheaper than anywhere else I could find it.

Hopefully I'll receive the book in a few days and for a fiver!!!

They also have The New English Kitchen which someone (I think it was thriftlady) mentioned recently for £7.99 (£12.53 @ Amazon) ... Roast Chicken & Other Stories £4.99 (£12 @ Amazon) ... Jamie's Italy £4.99 (£11.99 @ Amazon) as well as numerous other bargains, and if you spend over £30 you get 10 books free (lucky dip!)


I've now got 20 books on order for the grand sum of £32 :T :j :whistle:


I knew I shouldn't have entered this thread :rotfl:

thriftlady_2

I keep getting these threads muddled too,so apologies for repeating myself ad nauseum.

Curry Queen I hope you like The New English Kitchen.I find it inspirational but it does leave you feeling like every food decision you make is fraught with consequences.The concept of rolling foods into several meals is very OS.

moggins

Aaahh. I see, but if we're adding new information to an old thread or asking something relating to a previous posting that's not bumping is it? I thought last year we were being encouraged to use old threads rather than start new ones?

squeaky

moggins wrote:

Aaahh. I see, but if we're adding new information to an old thread or asking something relating to a previous posting that's not bumping is it? I thought last year we were being encouraged to use old threads rather than start new ones?

You are quite right

As I said in the other thread we actively encourage people to join an existing older thread rather than start a new one.

The distinction is on "bumping" a thread; where a person posts into it with no new information merely to bump it up to the top of the list, this is generally considered to be poor netiquette.

Where possible, if I have the time I will search out an older thread for someone and merge them, though if I don't have much time it's quicker for me just to post a link to the thread so at least the poster gets pointed towards some help.

At other times, by the time I've seen a thread it may have so many posts in it that merging it would mean it gets all tangled up with the other one and will be difficult to read. In this case I let it be to help keep the board readable.

I hope that helps clear things up.

Lydia_2

squeaky wrote:

There's a difference between joining an old thread to add a similar post to it to save proliferation of posts all on the same subject - and posting into a thread purely and deliberately to bring it to the top of the forum listing.

Joining threads is encouraged. Bumping them isn't.

Will somebody please explain the difference between bumping a thread and joining a thread. I thought if you joined it to add a information or ask a question it got bumped to the top anyway. Some of the rules and regulations on old style are a bit confusing and I dont want to risk another telling off by the board guide. Are we allowed to post on older threads or not?

It would be great if somebody is able to clear this up for people like me who are quite new to old style. Thank you.

squeaky

Lydia wrote:

Will somebody please explain the difference between bumping a thread and joining a thread. I thought if you joined it to add a information or ask a question it got bumped to the top anyway. Some of the rules and regulations on old style are a bit confusing and I dont want to risk another telling off by the board guide. Are we allowed to post on older threads or not?

It would be great if somebody is able to clear this up for people like me who are quite new to old style. Thank you.

I just explained this in the post directly before yours.

I'll quote it again for you:-

As I said in the other thread we actively encourage people to join an existing older thread rather than start a new one.

The distinction is on "bumping" a thread; where a person posts into it with no new information merely to bump it up to the top of the list, this is generally considered to be poor netiquette.

Where possible, if I have the time I will search out an older thread for someone and merge them, though if I don't have much time it's quicker for me just to post a link to the thread so at least the poster gets pointed towards some help.

At other times, by the time I've seen a thread it may have so many posts in it that merging it would mean it gets all tangled up with the other one and will be difficult to read. In this case I let it be to help keep the board readable.

I hope that helps clear things up.

Lydia_2

I did read that post thank you. Does this mean if I have something useful to post or a question to one of the other people who has posted on the thread I am allowed to post even if it is a very old thread? I am sorry if I sound a bit thick I just dont want to get it wrong again.

squeaky

By all means do, yes please.