Thread Necromancy - what is bad about it?

[willpell]

I have never understood the rationale that says it is better to litter the thread with new threads rather than revive old ones which address the topic. What's the logic behind this? Isn't it better to keep it to one thread per topic and have all the discussion on that topic stand on the shoulders of what's gone before? The rules even say that if you want to reference something in an old thread, you should link to that thread instead of posting in it! Whence derives this madness?!?

On a related note, I'm not clear on why redundant threads are closed instead of being merged into those similar to them. Again, it just seems to clutter the board into unreadability.

[Raddish]

I think it's usually better to start a new conversation about something instead of attatching a response to a thread that is possibly over a year old and the people who wrote in it may have forgotten what or why they posted in it.

I guess that it is figured to be better to have a new clear starting point than try to add to a long dead conversation whose particapants may not even remember it.

[Savannah]

I believe this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5461942#post5461942) is the most comprehensive and official answer.

[Rawhide]

Savannah has linked you to the relevant answer on thread necromancy. Please mote that Gorby was a moderator at the time (now retired).

As for duplicate threads. Threads are closed or merged on a case by base basis. Please note that in most instances it is better to close than merge as merging causes confusion and readability issues inside the thread. Closed threads will disappear off the front page of discussion forums soon enough.