Why is it that reviving old threads is sooooo bad?

[ElektroFreak]

I'm sure plenty of people will chime in with answers akin to "it just IS!!!!" but what I'm really looking for is some good real-world reasons why..

Seems like if a thread on a topic is already started, why not keep things organized by continuing in that thread instead of creating many threads all with the same info? Doing so just makes sense to me, and would help keep the search results down a bit as well.

Any input is appreciated!

 

[SpyderFire]

I completely agree.

The only problem is when someone asks "Is this still available?" when its a laser for sale from 2 years ago.

 

[chipdouglas]

i made a similar thread a while ago and the resulsts left me right where i started.

michael

 

[ElektroFreak]

Hmm, so there is no good reason? Well, this threads new still... surely SOMEONE out there can give a few solid reasons for this seemingly pointless and ridiculous idea..

The reason I posted this question is because a thread was just locked by a mod for no other reason than the fact that the thread is old. The product in question still exists and is sold to the best of my knowledge.. I can't think of a single reason that justifies closing a thread completely.

 

[RA_pierce]

I think it depends on how it is being revived.

If the poster has new or updated info to provide I think that it is not a problem at all.
However, if it is a spam post like "I agree" or "lol" then it can be annoying.
If the thread has become irrelevant then it can be just as annoying as the 5 new Wickedlasers threads that pop up every day now.

In most cases that I have seen here, old threads being resurrected were done so with pointless info, in which case it could be considered spam.

I think that the thread you are referring to is no longer relevant since the pricing of the laser in question has changed as well as the product itself.
There was still possibility for discussion but not about anything that is currently relevant or that would benefit the hobby.

 

[daguin]

Hmm, so there is no good reason? Well, this threads new still... surely SOMEONE out there can give a few solid reasons for this seemingly pointless and ridiculous idea..

The reason I posted this question is because a thread was just locked by a mod for no other reason than the fact that the thread is old. The product in question still exists and is sold to the best of my knowledge.. I can't think of a single reason that justifies closing a thread completely.

Avoiding necro-posting limits confusion and the dissemination of misinformation.

Threads are rarely closed JUST because a thread is old. It is because the information in the thread is old

Times change. Conditions change. Diodes change. Drivers change. People change.

Rather than evaluating each individual necro-post for whether there is still any value in it, for me, the decision is based on if the person doing the necro-post read the thread and did indeed find new value.

For example, I closed one this morning that was necro-posted simply saying that laser was expensive. That thread was four years old. Economics and the price of the laser are both VERY different now. If there was some comparison made or some notice about the "real" price in adjusted dollars or some such, I would have left it be.

However, just to say that it was expensive today based on the price four years ago without any added info is a waste of time. People complain all the time about unneeded posts. That was certainly an unneeded post.

**IF** someone has a valid question or discussion about the laser today, we do not need NooBs being confused by reading through four year old information to get to the valid info. Start a timely thread without any of the outdated info in it.

A closed thread is not the elimination of the information. It is still searchable. I just separates the old info from the new info. If the necro-post had never happened, no one would be worried about the four year old thread.

Peace,
dave

**EDIT** @ EF -- Not getting an answer in only 28 minutes hardly qualifies as no good answer being available.

 

[LA5ER]

Say you brought back a thread that was a year old, well you basically bring back the OP too, and so it is almost like ressurecting the account, even if that person has not logged on in over a year. So if you apply it to real life its almost like saying Why is it bad to bring dead people back to life? Taboo is what it is. jk or not

 

[ElektroFreak]

^that makes no sense.. in no way does posting in an old thread compare to the supernatural act of resurrection.

@Dave, you did see where I said "this thread is still new" right? That was where I acknowledged that not much time had passed.

Posting an unneeded post is different than the act of reviving old threads. Also, I fail to see how posting valid info in an old thread misleads anyone. The moment you post in a thread it becomes updated, regardless of age. It seems to me that having umpteen zillion search responses in 347 different threads for certain terms can be far more misleading and confusing.

So far, only one of the reasons posted here, spam prevention, would qualify as a solid, good reason when compared to the simplicity and organization found by keeping things minimized. When I say minimized I mean minimum number of threads for a given topic and minimum search responses for a given search term.

 

[daguin]

^that makes no sense..

@Dave, you did see where i said "this thread is still new" right? That was where I acknowledged that not much time had passed.

So far, zero reasons posted would qualify as solid, good reasons..

That would be what we call a difference of opinion.

Peace,
dave

 

[ElektroFreak]

That would be what we call a difference of opinion.

Peace,
dave

Perhaps.. And above that you have what some folks like to call a revised post..

All I'm saying is that to me, the whole idea of frowning on people updating old threads seems a waste of effort that would better be spent elsewhere in the forum, especially when you take into account the fact that less is more when it comes to the hodgepodge of information that is found on most forums.

 

[Asherz]

Ressurecting old threads in a fast moving hobby is rarely relavent, unless information has changed or been updated since that moment in time.

I also don't think that finding a thread that is a year or two old, and then just posting useless and stupid such as:

"cool lazor brah"

If you actually contribute relevant and useful information then I can't see any problem, otherwise what's the point? You may as well just make a new one.

Why make issues confusing by updating an old thread? It's not like we have a limited thread number allowed on the forum.

La5er I don't understand your point either, resurrecting old threads has nothing to do with bringing people back from the dead. You're simply bringing up old info, regardless of who posted it.

 

[Fonduman]

i think the point is that even writing an update at the end of the thread can lead people to go through the first posts, giving outdated info. anyway, writing a new thread about an object shouldnt cause problems because if the last thread is old it wont even be near the front of the thread list.

 

[ElektroFreak]

Ressurecting old threads in a fast moving hobby is rarely relavent, unless information has changed or been updated since that moment in time.

I also don't think that finding a thread that is a year or two old, and then just posting useless and stupid such as:

"cool lazor brah"

If you actually contribute relevant and useful information then I can't see any problem, otherwise what's the point? You may as well just make a new one.

Why make issues confusing by updating an old thread? It's not like we have a limited thread number allowed on the forum.

La5er I don't understand your point either, resurrecting old threads has nothing to do with bringing people back from the dead. You're simply bringing up old info, regardless of who posted it.

Sure, I understand what both you and Dave are saying about limiting stupid posts, and the thread I linked to above did contain a few pointless posts, but it still seems to me that the issue people have the most trouble with is the pointless posts, not the fact that the thread is old.

I thought (and certainly could be wrong) that once a thread is updated with a fresh post it returns to the first search results..

This is good though.. this is precisely the kind of discussion I had hoped would occur. Already the different perspectives are helping me to understand where everyone is coming from..

 

[Bionic-Badger]

I think it's kind of a balance. A reply that resurrects an old post needs to be both relevant to the post, and to current conditions. The reply also needs to be useful enough to not warrant people reading the old conversation up to that point to understand what the question/reply is about. When people reply to current posts, the other participants generally know what the post's current topic is about (which may differ a bit from the OP); that may not be the case with a necro-post.

I think many of the necro-posts do not strike that balance, and their reply might be better served as a new post, referencing the old post. If someone wants to renew interest in something, a fresh post can help summarize what information was provided in the old post on the same subject, and the discourse can continue.

I've seen some useful necro-posts though, and while people were quick to point out that the replying person was performing necromancy on an old post, it didn't seem that people were bothered by it. Other replies, however, are plain idiotic, like "lol" replies (which are idiotic in general), and replies to really old sales threads, etc.

 

[chipdouglas]

and sometimes necroposting is done by noobs just no knowing it was an old post, i was guilty of this 2 or 3 times.... mainly because the time stamp of the post is so out of the way and fits in with everything else.

michael

 

[Crazy Jay]

EF the reality is this. People easily get annoyed, that's the real reason.

Kinda like someone stepping onto a gangs turf especially if your the race they hate the most. "Noobs" on Vets territory