Necro-posting, Perhaps a silly question.

[Noir-Neko]

Serious question, why does Necro-posting bug people so much? I know it's frowned upon so I don't do it, but no one's really given me a solid answer as to why.

No, "Its annoying" does not constitute a solid answer.

I don't understand, why the majority of people on the internet seem to be fiercely adverse to someone posting in an old thread. "The conversation has come and gone and we're done talking about it" ? Thats what I get told a lot. But seriously, thats a pretty lame excuse, whats the point of a forum thread other then to gather the input of the people on said forum and have good time? If the Thread is 2 years old, whats wrong with bringing it up again and involve new members? How is Making a new thread Less Annoying?

I find it more irritating to search for a topic on a forum and then find 8 topics, named almost the same thing, all two pages long...

I just do not understand what the big deal is, perhaps someone could enlighten me as to why, this is so "Taboo"

[Innis Cabal]

Some people just like to mini-mod and it -is- against the site rules. So it gives people the oppurtunity to get their kicks and be even more annoying then someone posting their respects to a page.

Also, some things (like the homebrew section) are linked to peoples sigs, so they post to things found there in without thinking its a thread revive.

[Rawhide]

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.

[Hazkali]

I can't give a general response, but usually, it comes down to a few reasons:

Firstly, often the conversation has been concluded, one way or another, especially if what was an open OP veered off down a specific debate. In that case, what starts as an open question can quickly become a debate amongst a small group of posters. Once they've stopped posting, then it's annoying to have someone chip in their two pence.

Secondly, the content of these 'tag-on' posts is not the brilliant tinder to reignite the debate that the poster may believe. Often the new post has been better addressed after that thread had finished functioning, but before this new post. Sometimes, that post is entirely tangential to the direction of the thread.

Thirdly, old threads tend to be loooong. If someone posts in an old tread, it goes straight to the top of the board. This isn't so bad when a thread is fresh- everyone can keep up-to-date reading it if they want to. But with an old post, the new poster is (if they haven't just read the title and posted asininely) probably the first person in months to read the entirety of that thread. Anyone who wishes to participate will have to read through reams of posts until they are able to participate. People don't bother, so the thread hangs around the front board page for a few days, cluttering everything up.

Fourthly, Old Thread is Old. Things change, including (importantly) opinions. That thread could be misrepresenting your current opinions, and people could (neglecting the date stamps) come to entirely the wrong conclusion about someone as they are now.

Ultimately, it is just more respectful to posters to start a new thread. Summarise the old thread if you need to, but begin fresh so everyone can enjoy the party.

Edit: Rawhide ninja-d me with a more succinct answer.

[skywalker]

Some old threads come back more readily than others. I don't think they have a much of a problem, for instance, with posting to an older homebrew thread. Because usually, when someone updates their homebrew, they update the first post, they don't make a new one. And usually, people still want opinions, even months after.

If you contribute something new and fresh (which, like they say, is highly unlikely) to the debate, I personally (note I'm not a mod) don't see it as that bad. Most of the time, tho, the necromantic post seems remarkably bland and doesn't particularly add to the discussion. In that case, usually what happens is you get a bunch of people posting various images and "in b4 lock"-type posts. Which I, personally (again, not a mod), see as spamming for the purposes of increasing post count. I know we also don't discuss post counts, and we're not supposed to focus on them, but mods also try to highly discourage any sort of behavior that drives up post count (see my sig quote) or, indeed, wanting a high post count at all. But, since they can't keep people from wanting it, they just try to discourage the spamming. SMBG and the fact that posts there don't count is one instance of this.

Anyway, what I'm saying there is, thread necromancy is, in my view, a manner of spamming, and encourages spamming from others.

[EmeraldRose]

One possibility I've seen used (and may have done a time or two) when an old thread is found that someone wants to comment on:

Instead of posting in the old thread, simply link the old thread in your new one. Then if people want to continue the discussion, there is a reference to whatever was talked about in the earlier version...and no threadomancy.

[Roland St. Jude]

One possibility I've seen used (and may have done a time or two) when an old thread is found that someone wants to comment on:

Instead of posting in the old thread, simply link the old thread in your new one. Then if people want to continue the discussion, there is a reference to whatever was talked about in the earlier version...and no threadomancy.

Just to clarify, don't just post a link to the old thread. Provide some new discussion of your own that you are bringing to the table and then link to the old thread. But, yes, generally, this is the preferred method of restarting a discussion.

If there's a reason you feel a specific old thread really needs to be revived (it's your Homebrew thread and you want to update it), PM a mod and we'll approve it or bump it for you.

[Talya]

If there's a reason you feel a specific old thread really needs to be revived (it's your Homebrew thread and you want to update it), PM a mod and we'll approve it or bump it for you.

This is actually important to me, thanks. I have a couple homebrew threads I update sporadicly (like, twice a year), so I didn't know whether I could just post it it or if I should ask first...

[EmeraldRose]

Just to clarify, don't just post a link to the old thread. Provide some new discussion of your own that you are bringing to the table and then link to the old thread. But, yes, generally, this is the preferred method of restarting a discussion.

If there's a reason you feel a specific old thread really needs to be revived (it's your Homebrew thread and you want to update it), PM a mod and we'll approve it or bump it for you.

Sorry Roland, I left that part out. I didn't mean just post the link and let that be it...

[Meat Shield]

And it should be noted that the Tears of Blood campaign section of the board explicitly allows and encourages thread necromancy.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

This is actually important to me, thanks. I have a couple homebrew threads I update sporadicly (like, twice a year), so I didn't know whether I could just post it it or if I should ask first...

You could always just edit your posts rather than making a new one.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

You could always just edit your posts rather than making a new one.

But that won't bump it up to the top, so the only people that would realize it's being updated are those who take enough interest in the thread to check on it regularly. Or those that do archive trawls.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

But that won't bump it up to the top, so the only people that would realize it's being updated are those who take enough interest in the thread to check on it regularly. Or those that do archive trawls.

Yes of course. It depends whether it is for more personal use or public display.

[Thrall_Of_Ao]

As with many rules, there are exceptions that would make logical sense to allow (Tears of Blood, as Meat Shield mentioned being that allowance it would seem), but, for overall consistency, the rule is enforced across the board (no pun intended).

Traffic lights at 2AM............ Need I say more?

Seriously though, I am glad you brought this subject up and glad that so many knowledgable people contributed their explanations and thoughts on the matter as it was one that I have wondered about from time to time.

It actually reminds me of another question I have, which must mean that this is my que to conclue this post while I can still resist the urge to break another GITP rule: threadjacking!

-TOA

PS NO the question was not about threadjacking...

[scarybandit]

Just because an argument is old or new does not decrease or increase its validity or soundness.

The exceptions to this statement are confined to matters such as fashion or celebrity news.

Old threads are a forum community's memory and history. Close them if you will suffer from extreme OCD otherwise, but this whole topic seems a lot of fuss and bother.

[NerfTW]

Just because an argument is old or new does not decrease or increase its validity or soundness.

The exceptions to this statement are confined to matters such as fashion or celebrity news.

Old threads are a forum community's memory and history. Close them if you will suffer from extreme OCD otherwise, but this whole topic seems a lot of fuss and bother.

True, but in real life, do you walk up to your friends and immediately pick up a conversation you had two weeks ago with no recap? No, you say "Hey, remember that conversation we had where you said this, I just thought, what about this?"

Same on a message board. It's just polite if the conversation is old, to summarize and recap it in a new post if you have something new to add, rather than bring it to the top and expecting everyone else to read the entire thread to understand your post. Not to mention most necro-posts don't actually add anything new to the conversation, and in many cases on this board, are pointless.

Theres nothing stopping you from reading old threads. Just understand that forum etiquette since the days of Usenet state that you should start a new thread. It's like going to a black tie party wearing a tank top. Sure it's not hurting anyone, but it was an expected social rule that you dress properly.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Traffic lights at 2AM............ Need I say more?

In my town, traffic lights just go to blinking red or yellow, making them the equivalent of Yield and Stop signs when it is late at night.

[Charity]

But that won't bump it up to the top, so the only people that would realize it's being updated are those who take enough interest in the thread to check on it regularly. Or those that do archive trawls.

There is a way to bump a thread subtley, if you post and then delete it, I believe it will remain at the top.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

There is a way to bump a thread subtley, if you post and then delete it, I believe it will remain at the top.

I think that worked with YaBB, but I'm pretty sure that that's been removed now.

[Charity]

Quite right... I seem to be 3 years out of date.
No suprises there.

My pet hate is traffic lights on roundabouts, worst of both worlds... one or the other please town planners.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Quite right... I seem to be 3 years out of date.
No suprises there.

If you did it once or twice three years ago, but haven't since, it's to be expected.

My pet hate is traffic lights on roundabouts, worst of both worlds... one or the other please town planners.

Uh, wow. Never saw one of those. Of course, in my neck of the woods, I've only had the experience of about three roundabouts, and one of them was a suburban mini-roundabout with an island not more than 15 ft. in diameter. (If that; I'm no good when it comes to estimating sizes.)

[Charity]

We have... a lot of roundabouts, infact it used to be called doughnut city

this is what they look like

[Shhalahr Windrider]

this is what they look like

Now that's a roundabout! Certainly beats the one out by Lake Wissota, which is the biggest one I've dealt with.

[Rawhide]

In a roundabout way, I think this thread is done.