Simple mod question: thread necromancy.

[Misterwhisper]

Why is there a rule for locking threads due to thread necromancy?

All that does is create multiple locked threads on the same topics thus creating board clutter.

It would be much more efficient to just leave them open, and delete the new threads and point them to the old one if you have to.

Why should someone have to create a new thread on topic “x” when there is already one on the board.

[bid]

Those are the rules, they were made for a reason.
I'm pretty sure you can find many of them if you put your mind to it.

I'll give you a few:
- Whoever asked the question got his answer.
- Whoever asked the question is no longer active on the board.
- The lastest book makes the whole point invalid.

See, and I didn't even try hard.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Those are the rules, they were made for a reason.
I'm pretty sure you can find many of them if you put your mind to it.

I'll give you a few:
- Whoever asked the question got his answer.
- Whoever asked the question is no longer active on the board.
- The lastest book makes the whole point invalid.

See, and I didn't even try hard.

If I'm adding more details or more likely asking another related question in an old thread it is there for clarification.

I may ad clarification to the thread IF a new book made the answer obsolete

Years old threads on Gardenweb are the ones we learn the most from because they have followup.

If the OP is no longer active that's fine. They can or can not reply.

Either way, its the big Giant's (or whoever's) private board. If they don't want necromancy I'll make my point politely but hey, their private property so their rules.

[Lunali]

If you post a new question to an old thread, your question will likely get ignored as people start responding to the original thread again.

[JNAProductions]

This probably should've been asked somewhere else.

Another reason is a technical one-I think it causes some kinda electronic clutter to dig up old threads.

And besides, nothing stops you from linking to an old thread-in fact, that's suggested if you want to talk about an old point! Link to the old thread for reference, and make your point.

[Misterwhisper]

This probably should've been asked somewhere else.

Another reason is a technical one-I think it causes some kinda electronic clutter to dig up old threads.

And besides, nothing stops you from linking to an old thread-in fact, that's suggested if you want to talk about an old point! Link to the old thread for reference, and make your point.

It cause more electronic clutter to have multiple threads on the same topics.

I have had my own threads locked before because it was past the cut off date even when asking about a new book.

It is an arbitrary and counterproductive rule.

[JNAProductions]

It cause more electronic clutter to have multiple threads on the same topics.

I have had my own threads locked before because it was past the cut off date even when asking about a new book.

It is an arbitrary and counterproductive rule.

So, you broke the rules, and are now complaining that you didn't read the rules? (Which would've let you know to link to the old thread in the new one.)

And, unless you run your own forum, I'm pretty dang sure Roland St. Jude and the rest of the mods know better on what makes for an effective forum.

Finally, remember that the Giant and the Mods don't HAVE to do this. The Giant is putting his own money and the mods their own time in to make this forum run smoothly. You view it as arbitrary-I see it as reasonable, even if I'm not told every single reason why.

If you really hate the forum so much, there's nothing keeping you here.

[bid]

It is an arbitrary and counterproductive rule.
Entitlement is a sad thing.

[Yakmala]

When then, does a thread become necrotic?

After how many days without a new reply should an old thread be ignored in favor of a new thread on the same topic?

[bid]

When then, does a thread become necrotic?

After how many days without a new reply should an old thread be ignored in favor of a new thread on the same topic?
A 5 seconds search in the Forum Rules at the top of every page:

Thread Necromancy
Bringing a thread back from "the dead." If a thread hasn't been posted in within the last 45 days, don't reply to it. Start a new topic, if you want to discuss the subject (you are welcome to link to the old thread). If you think it would be better to resurrect an old thread, PM a moderator for that subforum and wait for approval. The original poster of a creation in Homebrew (and only that poster) may revive a creation beyond the 45 day threshold without prior Moderator approval.

[Kane0]

I can only speak of what I know, and I work in tech support. It's common practice to open a new ticket for each item, even in the case of duplicates. If you wanted one place to keep referring back to and updating that's better for a knowledge base than for active communication.

[Roland St. Jude]

Why is there a rule for locking threads due to thread necromancy?Sheriff: This question has been answered before in this subforum. Among many other reasons, it prevents people from trying to carry on a conversation with posters who have left (the thread or even the forum); it promotes active discussion that is inviting to new posters and not weighed down by discussion of prior posters who have already abandoned it; it prevents the revival of threads that are old enough to have embedded errors caused by one of the board transitions; it prevents the need for posters to search or view older threads, lessening the use of forum resources.

As with all our Forum Rules, we're aware that there are alternatives, and costs and benefits, but we've chosen this particular policy judgment as best for this forum.

[Rawhide]

I was about to pop in and link to this explanation (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=5461942&postcount=3), but got distracted and Roland already said it all.