The Indignation Directed at Ressurected Threads, Why?

[Huntn]

I've never gotten this. Either the subject still has relevance, people are practicing sound thread conservation, or someone wants to comment on an old topic, even if it has been resolved and yes, sometimes they did not notice it was an old thread.

When I ressurect old threads, usually I add a comment about it at the beginning of my post, to appease the critics, but it depends. If it's a thread with as much relevance today as it had a couple of years ago, I might not.

If it's someone else who ressurected the thread and did not note it, I might say "ressurected thread" in my reply if I make a repy to add to the discussion.

 

[citizenzen]

I think it's partly the feeling of being duped, thinking a topic is new, only to find it a continuation of a discussion five years ago.

I don't know why it makes me feel like a fool. But it does.

But blaze those trails. Be a pioneer. Be the person who makes necro-posting accepted and valued.

Go git'em, tiger.

 

[keysofanxiety]

I'd rather an older thread reopened than yet another thread on a topic 1000 people have covered already.

If the thread was originally from the PPC days or something and reopened with a new comment offering some tech support, I find it more endearing than I do irritating. Everybody's allowed a hiccup now and again and we can all laugh about it.

 

[vrDrew]

I think, to a certain degree, the Resurrected Thread is a byproduct of a forum search tool.

If, for instance, you are desperately interested in what your fellow forum members think about an interesting, but not necessarily timely, topic - a quick search will usually bring up a thread or two where that item is discussed.

The fact that thread may have died away a couple of years ago, and half the participants have moved on to greener pastures, is all but irrelevant. In the flush of enthusiasm, the searcher adds his or her comment, and the thread is revived.

 

[Weaselboy]

I think, to a certain degree, the Resurrected Thread is a byproduct of a forum search tool.

I suspect a lot of them come from Google searches also. You see a lot of new members mention they found something in a Google search and they stumble unknowingly into an old thread.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

This is a very longstanding social dynamic. It's seen in many species, not just ours. There will always be some regulars/old-timers who take it upon themselves to "educate" newcomers on the local customs. They take the offensive to put the newcomer on the defensive, thereby preserving or enhancing their (self-perceived) position in the pecking order.

 

[theluggage]

Either the subject still has relevance, people are practicing sound thread conservation, or someone wants to comment on an old topic, even if it has been resolved and yes, sometimes they did not notice it was an old thread.

If there's a genuine reason for resurrecting the thread - not a problem.

What you often see, though, is a "me too" post waking up an old thread, making the headline re-appear on the front page sidebar, and causing you to waste time reading a thread until it dawns on you that it is 5 year old news.

That's no reason to go ballistic and play "flame the newbie" or start demanding that the moderators smite the offender, but it does suggest, maybe, that the post date could maybe be more prominent (I find that the current design draws the eye to the member's join date, and I have to consciously 'hunt' for the post date).

There was one case recently where a thread on display recommendations from 2012 got reanimated, that was totally out of date in the age of retina displays and HiDPI modes... and one subsequent user posted something that clearly showed it had confused them.

I'd further suggest that:

• Posts over 6 months old are presented on a sepia background
• Posts over 12 months old have the font set to Courier
• Posts over 18 months old appear on a cobweb-motif background
• Posts over 2 years old have all occurrences of "s" changed to "f", "the" to "ye" etc.
• Posts over 3 years old are machine-translated to Latin.

...except not really Maybe look at the prominence of the post date vs. other, less important information, and maybe require 2 or 3 new posts to an ancient thread before promoting it to the front page (and assume that anybody with a strong interest in that topic would have the thread 'watched').

At most, maybe a warning ("You are replying to a thread more than 12 months old - are you sure?")

 

[Huntn]

If there's a genuine reason for resurrecting the thread - not a problem.

What you often see, though, is a "me too" post waking up an old thread, making the headline re-appear on the front page sidebar, and causing you to waste time reading a thread until it dawns on you that it is 5 year old news.

That's no reason to go ballistic and play "flame the newbie" or start demanding that the moderators smite the offender, but it does suggest, maybe, that the post date could maybe be more prominent (I find that the current design draws the eye to the member's join date, and I have to consciously 'hunt' for the post date).

There was one case recently where a thread on display recommendations from 2012 got reanimated, that was totally out of date in the age of retina displays and HiDPI modes... and one subsequent user posted something that clearly showed it had confused them.

I'd further suggest that:

• Posts over 6 months old are presented on a sepia background
• Posts over 12 months old have the font set to Courier
• Posts over 18 months old appear on a cobweb-motif background
• Posts over 2 years old have all occurrences of "s" changed to "f", "the" to "ye" etc.
• Posts over 3 years old are machine-translated to Latin.

...except not really Maybe look at the prominence of the post date vs. other, less important information, and maybe require 2 or 3 new posts to an ancient thread before promoting it to the front page (and assume that anybody with a strong interest in that topic would have the thread 'watched').

At most, maybe a warning ("You are replying to a thread more than 12 months old - are you sure?")

I believe as a generality, that ressurected threads should have a label on the post by the poster, that ressurects the thread but not necessarily.

Let's say it's a recipe thread. I see no reason to advise that it is ressurected because all the posts are still applicable. I would be against automated color coding for this reason. However, I would not object to an automated advisory that appears for the post that ressurects the thread. My habit pattern is such that I note the age of a thread, and then jump to the last page looking for the first recent post, then make a decision about participating.
[doublepost=1494335401][/doublepost]

I think it's partly the feeling of being duped, thinking a topic is new, only to find it a continuation of a discussion five years ago.

I don't know why it makes me feel like a fool. But it does.

But blaze those trails. Be a pioneer. Be the person who makes necro-posting accepted and valued.

Go git'em, tiger.

No, no duping involved.

I do believe some people possibly new members search, find a subject but don't realize it's a dead thread, or they don't care and feel they have a relevant comment to make. The dubious posts are when someone asks for advice about their relationship 10 years ago and they get an answer 10 years later, although someone could ask, how did it turn out?

I'd rather an older thread reopened than yet another thread on a topic 1000 people have covered already.

If the thread was originally from the PPC days or something and reopened with a new comment offering some tech support, I find it more endearing than I do irritating. Everybody's allowed a hiccup now and again and we can all laugh about it.

I support thread conservation. Some threads remain relevant regardless of age.

This is a very longstanding social dynamic. It's seen in many species, not just ours. There will always be some regulars/old-timers who take it upon themselves to "educate" newcomers on the local customs. They take the offensive to put the newcomer on the defensive, thereby preserving or enhancing their (self-perceived) position in the pecking order.

Sometimes I do get the feeling the way a reply is made that the primary indignant message is an irritated hey dummy this thread is dead as if a rule as been broken.

 

[whooleytoo]

It's funny how forums differ on this. Some demand you search for an existing relevant thread before re-posting, others have aggressive 'necro' policies that insta-moderate and close any old threads posted in.

Generally, I'd prefer to post in an old thread, particularly if it's not a very time-sensitive discussion. Someone bumping a 10 year old iTunes thread to say "CD ripping? Who even owns CDs any more!?!"... yeah, that thread needs to die.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

From my end I can't believe people are still droning on in the man getting kicked off a plane thread. 767 responses and growing, but I'll just express my annoyance in this thread. Most topics have been beaten to death by page 4. I just see it bumped to the top and have myself a silent "really?!?" moment.

 

[960design]

I've never gotten this. Either the subject still has relevance, people are practicing sound thread conservation, or someone wants to comment on an old topic, even if it has been resolved and yes, sometimes they did not notice it was an old thread.

When I ressurect old threads, usually I add a comment about it at the beginning of my post, to appease the critics, but it depends. If it's a thread with as much relevance today as it had a couple of years ago, I might not.

If it's someone else who ressurected[sic] the thread and did not note it, I might say "ressurected[sic] thread" in my reply if I make a repy to add to the discussion.

I cannot wait to resurrect this in five years....

 

[Huntn]

I cannot wait to resurrect this in five years....

And I'll curse you.