For real?

[brokowski]

I happened by this forum after a search brought me to
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80415&page=3

I was really enjoying reading this discussion, many years after it took place, as did another a few years before me, and they made a comment which, instead of continuing the discussion for me to read and learn from, the user was CHASTISED and the thread LOCKED, killing any chance of future discussion. The user was told to make a new thread and LINK to the old one. Why? Because someone has some anal OCD tick about continuing a thread that was created long ago? Is having TWO SEPERATE threads about the SAME THING better? What am I suppose to do now? Did the user make the new thread? Where can I find it? HOW can I find it? This is only infuriating.

[Lateral]

If I remember correctly, the ban on thread necromancy stems largely from website issues.

[Brother Oni]

The board rules (which you agreed to follow when you made an account here) ask that any thread that's been inactive for too long (6 weeks), not be restarted.

There are a couple of reasons for this, such as nobody on the old thread is now around on the board or the information discussed is now obsolete through version changes or just general progress.

If you don't like the rules, then don't make an account - it's not as if you need to make one to read here.

[brokowski]

The board rules (which you agreed to follow when you made an account here) ask that any thread that's been inactive for too long (6 weeks), not be restarted.

Umm, ok?


There are a couple of reasons for this, such as nobody on the old thread is now around on the board or the information discussed is now obsolete through version changes or just general progress.

Just because someone dropped out of a conversation doesn't mean it needs to end, and how am I suppose to know if what is discussed is obsolete if no one is allowed to say "this is obsolete." The admins suggested making a new thread, and linking the old one to it (I feel like I'm repeating myself here...) I don't understand how two threads on the same topic is helpful, nor do I know how I would find the new thread. Do you know if that poster took the admins advise and made the new thread? If they did do you know where it is?


If you don't like the rules, then don't make an account - it's not as if you need to make one to read here.

Ummm, ok...? I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. Do you have a point?

What board issues are created by thread necromancy? Splitting up conversations into separate threads scattered across the board seems much more problematic.

[The Rose Dragon]

Even if the poster did create a new thread, posting in it would also be thread necromancy, unless it was really popular for about three years somehow. Your best bet is creating your own thread, with your own questions and comments.

[brokowski]

I'm not looking to post in anything, I'm just upset that a discussion I wanted to read was ended by some wildly arbitrary rule, and the advise that was given is not something I can follow up on. In fact, I don't post often at all. I use to be a heavy forum user but in the past 7 or so years this thread probably makes post #3, I found that thread and felt like I was learning from it. People who had relevant questions were asking those questions and people with answers and/or informed opinions were giving them. Now there are a few more questions but no one is allowed to answer, or if they were answered I have no way of finding out: I don't know where the new thread of the same thing is or if it was even made.

[TuggyNE]

I'm not looking to post in anything, I'm just upset that a discussion I wanted to read was ended by some wildly arbitrary rule, and the advise that was given is not something I can follow up on.

The discussion is not deleted, merely sealed and archived.


Now there are a few more questions but no one is allowed to answer, or if they were answered I have no way of finding out: I don't know where the new thread of the same thing is or if it was even made.

Generally speaking, it is not a difficult thing to find people with expertise for the topic you want; just start a new thread with a sensible title and good opening post and (usually) you'll get the replies you'd expect from the other one, with the happy bonus of not causing unpleasant continuity jumps and confusing new readers.

Put another way, you too can get those answers! Just ask again! Threads are not unique and precious snowflakes with stellar conjunctions of priceless posters that will never return; they're actually really rather a dime a dozen, and usually easy to recreate as needed.

[Avaris]

I can understand your frustrations, but I think the main issue with threadnomancy is this: when I see a new thread appear on a forum, I don't immediately know how new or old it is. Therefore, my reading of a thread may go something like this:

Original poster: blahblahCAKE
Poster 2 (at the original time the thread was created): blahblahScone
Poster 3 (who has revived the thread a few years later): Cake? CAKE!

Now, I am a man with a love for Scones, so want to respond to poster 2, as it is an interesting topic. However poster 2 left years ago, so will never see my response. Equally, the original poster has also left, so poster 3's comment is also going to go unanswered.

The issue is, when reading a thread, it is a reasonable expectation (dependent on the thread) that the original post and the last few pages are 'current'. Threadnomancy means that, if I don't notice the date, I will spend time reading and commenting on things I will never get a response to, which is detrimental to wider conversation. As a poster, I may be frustrated by people seemingly ignoring my views, especially when it appears that a thread has previously been popular (albeit several years ago).

It is therefore better to make a new thread, as it ensures the points to be discussed are the ones that are 'current'. As someone wanting to talk things over, you as the new thread starter can guide the conversation so it is only about Cake, as that is your area of interest. If people want to, they can read the old thread, but it isn't required knowledge. It also means that if the new conversation goes of in a new direction, you can edit the first post so newcomers to the thread know about it! (the cake thread may become a wider confectionery thread)

All that said, I can agree that being able to link to the new thread in the old thread would be helpful. The issue is though that people involved in conversation 1 may not be around for conversation 2, so can't edit to add a link in.

[AttilaTheGeek]

Another justification for banning thread necromancy is that if the community wanted to continue a discussion, then the discussion would have been continued. Since the discussion died, it means nobody had anything else to say on the matter. Perhaps a newer version of whatever they were talking about obsoleted the topic, perhaps all the posters in the conversation lost interest, or perhaps everything relevant was said. If one person brings back an old thread with a single post, as in Avaris's example, then it's likely to just clutter up the boards with a topic the community has already decided it doesn't want to discuss.

[Rawhide]

The decision is far from arbitrary. Disappointed that no one has linked to the old explanation this time:



1) The posting population is inconstant and discussions lose momentum. Reviving an old discussion is typically counterproductive because the originators have likely moved on, having lost interest in the discussion or concluded that it has run it's course.

That being said, the policy is actually *helpful* in fostering an active community -- new people can start, engage and mold their own discussions that previous posters have lost interest in (typically because they've been discussed to death) without having to defer to the conclusions of previous conversations.

But mind you, a duplicate of a recent thread will likely be nixed by the mods. But a discussion about ... the TV show Scrubs that started two years ago has little bearing on the attitude of current posters.


Azrael's explanation of the thread necromancy rules is dead on. We'd rather have new discussions start than revive old threads where many of the original posters have moved on. That being said, we also recommend linking to old threads on similar discussions, as they can provide some insight to concepts that had been raised before.

Necromancy also brings with it problems when there were technical issues in the past (such as those from the old forum software) all of a sudden appearing on page one and confusing people.

It should be noted that Gorbash Kazdar was a moderator at the time.


Anyway, question asked, question answered, thread closed.