Zombie Threads

[padren]

I'd like to see a warning pop up when someone goes to hit "reply" in a thread that has 3+ years of inactivity... that pops up something like:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un3-Hb9wF9s

 

With the notation underneath:

 

This thread died long ago! You are about to return it to the world of the living!

 

Are you sure this is for the best? Click [x] to continue.... [y] to cancel

 

 

...sometimes there is a fair reason to do this, such as a political discussion that has a new court ruling or new events, but the practice should be discouraged - and in as an entertaining manner if possible.

[mooeypoo]

I support the motion.

[StringJunky]

Yep. I agree...it's a bummer accidentally replying to a zombie thread. A humorous warning popup is a great idea!

[Moontanman]

I agree, that would be a great idea!

[John]

I stand by the point I made in IRC.

 

1. It's considered poor form to post a new thread about something that's been discussed before. "Do a search" or a simple link as a reply.

 

2. It's considered poor form to post in an old thread, even if you have something to contribute to the old discussion.

 

So, wut do? Granted there are exceptions (thread necromancy in the name of a meaningless "Me too!" is silly), but the fact remains, these mentalities seem to be in conflict.

 

But since I'm also steeped in this tradition, I'll support the motion as well.

 

Because self-contradiction is excellent.

[Zolar V]

I support that nomination with my full hearty heartedness.

[ydoaPs]

I stand by the point I made in IRC.

 

1. It's considered poor form to post a new thread about something that's been discussed before. "Do a search" or a simple link as a reply.

 

2. It's considered poor form to post in an old thread, even if you have something to contribute to the old discussion.

 

So, wut do? Granted there are exceptions (thread necromancy in the name of a meaningless "Me too!" is silly), but the fact remains, these mentalities seem to be in conflict.

 

But since I'm also steeped in this tradition, I'll support the motion as well.

 

Because self-contradiction is excellent.

Emphasis mine.

 

False.

[swansont]

I support that nomination with my full hearty heartedness.

 

 

Heart? Why not your braaaaiiins. We want you to support it with braaaaiiiins.

 

Anyway, ydoaPs makes a good point. It's only poor form to resurrect an old thread if you are merely (at best) making a superficial point. And I'm not willing to wait two years to say "I agree."

[Bignose]

A lot times old threads are necromanced by spammers. A spammer posts spam to an old thread, a mod cleans it up, but the old thread having now been brought back to the top the subforum it was in, re-attracts posts. Locking out old threads would remove this cycle of dragging them back up solely because of spam, instead of superficial comments like "I agree". I suspect that most of the time the superficial posts aren't intentionally made on ancient threads -- the posts are superficial but the poster does think that the thread is relatively recent.

[John]

Emphasis mine.

 

False.

 

Then remove the emphasized portion. Point stands.

Edited August 15, 2010 by John

[ydoaPs]

Not really.

[John]

Not really.

 

Baby, why you always gotta make me hit you?

[AzurePhoenix]

Meh, I agree with John, I'd rather the late-responder would start fresh, with a nod to the original thread, than revive the old one.

[Zolar V]

Heart? Why not your braaaaiiins. We want you to support it with braaaaiiiins.

 

Anyway, ydoaPs makes a good point. It's only poor form to resurrect an old thread if you are merely (at best) making a superficial point. And I'm not willing to wait two years to say "I agree."

 

Ahh, true!

 

Emotions are always trumped by brains and logical thoroughput, So therefore it would be much more accurate to agree to the nomination with brains.

Nice juicy, and slighly chilled brains.

[swansont]

A lot times old threads are necromanced by spammers. A spammer posts spam to an old thread, a mod cleans it up, but the old thread having now been brought back to the top the subforum it was in, re-attracts posts. Locking out old threads would remove this cycle of dragging them back up solely because of spam, instead of superficial comments like "I agree". I suspect that most of the time the superficial posts aren't intentionally made on ancient threads -- the posts are superficial but the poster does think that the thread is relatively recent.

 

I think that with the new software, if we banish the spammer before any responses are made, it no longer lists it as a newly updated thread — I recall observing this happening recently. So this may not present as much of an annoyance as it used to.

[Severian]

What is the problem with posting in an old thread? If they have a valid point to make, why shouldn't they make it? Maybe they have just been mulling it over for 3 years or so...

[padren]

What is the problem with posting in an old thread? If they have a valid point to make, why shouldn't they make it? Maybe they have just been mulling it over for 3 years or so...

 

What usually happens is you see a thread that seems to be hot - already 6 or 7 pages, and you get through the first few pages before realizing all the names are pretty old and quickly see that the dates are from a couple years ago... only bumped by a "yeah me too" comment at the very end. If the title is "Who will win: Obama or McCain" it's pretty self-evident, but often enough you end up reading through posts you thought at first were current, and realize aren't.

 

Especially when you click "read most recent post" and it goes to the very first post that's actually 3 years old.

 

What if when you added a necro-post to an old thread (when the previous post was more than x months/years old) it adds a (revived) after the title, so if someone posted here after 6 months of inactivity say, the title would show up as "Zombie Threads (revived)" in the forums?

 

That could be pretty simple, and as a visual cue it would help you easily differentiate.

[forufes]

sometimes threads create an interesting trail of thoughts..one so unique that a new thought or idea would fit exactly there better than in a new thread.

 

i also don't see why people don't like resurrection of old threads.. what's so formidable about it? i see it as cute and refreshing as looking at photos of you when you were a kid..

[CaptainPanic]

sometimes threads create an interesting trail of thoughts..one so unique that a new thought or idea would fit exactly there better than in a new thread.

 

i also don't see why people don't like resurrection of old threads.. what's so formidable about it? i see it as cute and refreshing as looking at photos of you when you were a kid..

 

In old threads, the information might be out of date.

Often you see people asking a question, or quoting a previous post - but no answers can be expected because the member is inactive now.

 

Finally, the reason that the thread was started (someone was curious about something) expired. With that I mean that the person who opens the thread is often the person who is asking a question, and the other members help this person by answering the question. If the person who opened the thread is still active, it is likely he/she already has an answer or lost interest. If the person became inactive, answering is pointless.

 

I think it's better to open a new thread, so that it is clear on what topic the new thread is centered. The old thread can be included with a link.