I pit Dopers who can't roll with the times...

[jayjay]

Once upon a time, reviving very old threads that had lain quiescent for years was considered a faux pas here, back before we were indexed by Google. But times have changed. I'd bet that a good proportion of our new members are coming from Google searches that brought up an older thread that intrigued them, so they joined and posted in it.

And what's the inevitable welcome they get? "YOU IDIOT! THIS THREAD IS A ZOOOOOMBIE! BRAINS! BRAINS!"

Way to be the Unwelcome Wagon, folks. Let's drive people off the day they join because they broke a board rule that is, with Google indexing, all but obsolete! Being surly and combative to new members whose only crime was reviving a zombie thread is sure to convince them to stay!

Folks, most of these people aren't trolls. They're mostly just normal folks like us who happen to have come to the Dope from an outside, impersonal source which wasn't capable of warning them about things like reviving threads and such. When you jump on them immediately with completely incomprehensible (to them) scoldings, you really make this place look less than interesting. You are probably driving people away with these "ZOMBIE!" attacks.

The more joking ones are fine. It's the condescending, smug, angry, nasty ones that are a problem, and I'm seeing a lot more of them as time goes on. Let it freaking rest. If you feel the need to inform about the zombie rule, inform gently, preferably without sharp words and condescending attitude. Otherwise you're going to shrink the membership even further than it already has shrunk.

[chiroptera]

But does this board desperately need legions more members who don't understand the workings of the internet well enough to realise that reading date stamps on whatever google spews up is a good idea?

I say be hard on them and the ones that weather the snark and learn from it are going to be keepers anyway. 99.99% of the rest are idiot one-post wonders. Who needs them?

[Inner Stickler]

I would be more concerned if there were any evidence any poster who necros a thread with their first post actually contributes to the board.

[jz78817]

But does this board desperately need legions more members who don't understand the workings of the internet well enough to realise that reading date stamps on whatever google spews up is a good idea?

I say be hard on them and the ones that weather the snark and learn from it are going to be keepers anyway. 99.99% of the rest are idiot one-post wonders. Who needs them?

do we need yet another board which thinks it's the most awesome, smartest place on earth and rails mercilessly on people whom it decrees are not good enough?

[chiroptera]

do we need yet another board which thinks it's the most awesome, smartest place on earth and rails mercilessly on people whom it decrees are not good enough?

Sure, why not?
It's better than the alternative - boards where any stupid yahoo is welcome to post and post often. This place turns into a kinder, gentler board where yahoo answers type folks start congregating, most regulars will be gone.

[NoClueBoy]

Well, if they bring pie ...

[tim-n-va]

It is so cute when a member here thinks the board membership is somehow better than the general public.

[jayjay]

I should have realized the Snobbies would respond. Look, the idea that we're some kind of super-special, ultra-intelligent, better than the vast mass of humanity demographic is...well, kinda dumb. It doesn't matter if we get a flood of Youtube commenters here. If they're that bad, they'll get banned eventually for being jerks, if not something more specific. If they aren't that bad, they'll probably fit in. If they don't fit in and want to leave, that's up to them. But this look-down-your-nose, board-snob bullshit is both unjustified and unwise.

[samclem]

It is so cute when a member here thinks the board membership is somehow better than the general public.

Are you so sure it isn't?

[ProbablyProcrastinating]

But does this board desperately need legions more members who don't understand the workings of the internet well enough to realise that reading date stamps on whatever google spews up is a good idea?

I say be hard on them and the ones that weather the snark and learn from it are going to be keepers anyway. 99.99% of the rest are idiot one-post wonders. Who needs them?

I don't think knowing that threads can be revived indicates a lack of knowledge of how the Internet works.

I have threads on the Internet that I *personally* started in 1995, that sometimes get revived, and I think it's fascinating. I like to see how perspectives change over time.

I didn't realize threads had a shelf life. Way to be booooooring.

Or is the groupthink here that "it's better to start a new thread on the same topic, which we have all already commented on, then to just use an old one"? That's interesting.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Ban 'em!! Ban 'em now!! Before they violate more SD rules!!

[chiroptera]

I don't think knowing that threads can be revived indicates a lack of knowledge of how the Internet works.

No shit?

I have threads on the Internet that I *personally* started in 1995, that sometimes get revived, and I think it's fascinating. I like to see how perspectives change over time.

I can think of a whole lot more interesting ways to "see how perspectives change over time" than unwittingly reviving a thread about a 4-year-old boyfriend issue or whatever the fuck by someone earnestly addressing the OP, not realising that the whole thing is a fucking zombie.

I didn't realize threads had a shelf life. Way to be booooooring.

Or is the groupthink here that "it's better to start a new thread on the same topic, which we have all already commented on, then to just use an old one"? That's interesting.

Really. You must be a blast at parties.

[jayjay]

Are you so sure it isn't?

It may be. But it didn't happen because only the better-than-general joined. The membership may be better because it's been continually shaken down, the real idiots and jerks having been banned and the very-bad-fits falling away on their own. The point is that the board depends on a continued influx of members, some of whom stay and some of whom don't. If you cut off that influx because you somehow think we've achieved some magical equilibrium, the Perfect Membership that can never be changed, the board will whither even more than it already has since the Very Questionable Management Decisions of the past few years began.

I see this attitude occasionally here, that we're on such a higher plane than anyone else on the internet, and it makes me laugh every time. I'm a long-time member. I've been here since 2000. And I don't really think I'm anything special. I'm an average person, with maybe just slightly-above-average intelligence which doesn't really manifest in my life conditions. I'm not wealthy. I'm not even really financially comfortable...I live paycheck to paycheck. My major talent is the ability to recall useless trivia. I'm nobody special. And I don't believe that I'm unique in the membership of this board.

[jz78817]

Are you so sure it isn't?

OK, it is; if it'll make you feel better.

[cmyk]

I roll with the times... In my petrol-fueled motor carriage!

[jz78817]

I see this attitude occasionally here, that we're on such a higher plane than anyone else on the internet, and it makes me laugh every time. I'm a long-time member. I've been here since 2000. And I don't really think I'm anything special. I'm an average person, with maybe just slightly-above-average intelligence which doesn't really manifest in my life conditions. I'm not wealthy. I'm not even really financially comfortable...I live paycheck to paycheck. My major talent is the ability to recall useless trivia. I'm nobody special. And I don't believe that I'm unique in the membership of this board.

ars technica is just as bad. Worse, even.

[tim-n-va]

Are you so sure it isn't?

Yes I am!

[Inner Stickler]

Look, the idea that we're some kind of super-special, ultra-intelligent, better than the vast mass of humanity demographic is...well, kinda dumb.No, really?

If being a caustic asshole makes even one person pay more attention to timestamps then I will not have cranked in vain. Plus, it's fun.

[Czarcasm]

Ban 'em!! Ban 'em now!! Before they violate more SD rules!!Thank you for those words of wisdom, Non Sequitur Smurf.

[silenus]

If they bump a years-old thread to add something positive, or even remotely topical or relevant it would be one thing. But the majority of these resurrections seem to be to repeat something that was disproven years ago, or to parrot something the thread had figured out by post #15. They don't freaking read the treads they are bumping. Those people are a net loss to any board anywhere, and don't deserve anything but derision and contempt. Fuck 'em.

Now those bumpers who actually read the threads and bring in new information are welcome anytime anywhere. they are the life blood of a board.

[Tamex]

I kind of like it when old posts I've posted in get revived...I get an email when someone posts to a thread I've subscribed to, and it brings me back to this board for a while. Sometimes I read through the posts and think, "Boy, I really agree with that one...oh, it was posted by me!"

[jackdavinci]

I find it amusing that the posters who pile on the snark about reviving zombie threads are the same ones who summon up righteous indignation and an angry link when anyone starts a new thread even remotely related to one that has previously existed.

If people really hate zombies they should canvas to have a mod appointed whose sole duty is to go around locking threads that have lain idle too long.

[needscoffee]

I thought the whole point of the zombie joke was to alert further posters that the thread is a zombie.

[Uzi]

do we need yet another board which thinks it's the most awesome, smartest place on earth and rails mercilessly on people whom it decrees are not good enough?

Front page: Cecil most intelligent person on the planet.
http://www.straightdope.com/pages/faq/cecil

Top of page:
"Fighting ignorance since 1973"

We are the smartest and most awesomeness place on the earth.

I'd suggest that the monkeys are not the correct people for fighting ignorance. Yes, they can look up and see the light we bring to the benighted, but, like children, they should be seen (after a suitable washing, of course) and not heard.

But, meh, I don't have a problem with old threads, either.

[Euphonious Polemic]

I thought the whole point of the zombie joke was to alert further posters that the thread is a zombie.

So did I , but apparently some posters feel that we should say anything so as not to hurt someone's pwecious little feewings.

[Amasia]

So did I , but apparently some posters feel that we should say anything so as not to hurt someone's pwecious little feewings.

So our own Special Rainbow Doubly-Smart posters aren't able to tell the age of a thread unless they are given a specific zombie warnings...

but those pitiful drones on the web are morons for not realizing the age of threads- without any special zombie warning in place?

Got it.

[elucidator]

We had this whole "openness" argument years back, when we were discussing whether to lift the ban on lawyers. No need to remind you how that worked out!

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

If they bump a years-old thread to add something positive, or even remotely topical or relevant it would be one thing. But the majority of these resurrections seem to be to repeat something that was disproven years ago, or to parrot something the thread had figured out by post #15. They don't freaking read the treads they are bumping. Those people are a net loss to any board anywhere, and don't deserve anything but derision and contempt. Fuck 'em.
I'll bump this thread in five years to say "this".

[ProbablyProcrastinating]

No shit?



I can think of a whole lot more interesting ways to "see how perspectives change over time" than unwittingly reviving a thread about a 4-year-old boyfriend issue or whatever the fuck by someone earnestly addressing the OP, not realising that the whole thing is a fucking zombie.



Really. You must be a blast at parties.

No! I'm not shitting you! That's what I actually think!

This is the second time people here have recognized how fun I am at parties! I think you guys must really know how to party. It helps that I have a great music collection.

[Farmer Jane]

Most regular Dopers have been duped by Zombie threads before. So yes, I agree - be nice to newbies who find SDMB by accident and post in a Zombie thread.

[srzss05]

Are you so sure it isn't?

I am. Perhaps warnings should be given out for the zombie "jokes" in the same way that warnings are given for Yakov Smirnoff jokes.

[emcee2k]

All the complaints people have with posting in old threads seem to apply equally to new threads. There is no logical reason to be bothered by it.

It's just that despite all the neologisms and annoying ads, there are people who still can't seem to find enough pointless crap to bitch about.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

[Lemur866]

You know, sometimes zombie threads are fun. Like, you see an old thread, and start reading it, and you see all these people who haven't been around in a while, making the same dumb arguments they always used to make, and you wish the thread was current so you could pop in and set everyone straight. And then you see your earlier past self say exactly what you wish you could say in the present. And then you feel a little bit of warmth towards that past self--see, he wasn't such a bad guy after all. He was actually quite clever. So there's that.

[Dolores Reborn]

I am. Perhaps warnings should be given out for the zombie "jokes" in the same way that warnings are given for Yakov Smirnoff jokes.

They give warnings for Yakov Smirnoff jokes?

[Frank]

They give warnings for Yakov Smirnoff jokes?
In Soviet Russia, Yakov Smirnov jokes warn them!

[SciFiSam]

I thought the whole point of the zombie joke was to alert further posters that the thread is a zombie.

Yeah. Sometimes it's humourous - like a recently-revived thread about foods from your local area, so who could blame anyone for making a zombie-related pun there? It also reminds people that they might have already read the thread or even posted on it.

Sometimes it's just a way of saying 'uh, dude, you didn't read the whole thread. If that illegal parker's car is still there, it's a pile of rust inhabited by raccoons.' Because the post-dates aren't really highlighted and newbies might not realise that a current Google search might turn up a thread that's not so current.

I haven't really seen any obnoxious omg it's a zombie! posts. But I might have missed them.

[jsgoddess]

If they're that bad, they'll get banned eventually for being jerks, if not something more specific.

That's true. It's not like racists or the like are tolerated here.

[SnakesCatLady]

I find it amusing that the posters who pile on the snark about reviving zombie threads are the same ones who summon up righteous indignation and an angry link when anyone starts a new thread even remotely related to one that has previously existed.

If people really hate zombies they should canvas to have a mod appointed whose sole duty is to go around locking threads that have lain idle too long.

I totally agree with you. You can't win - if you revive an old post you get the snarky "braaaaaaains" comments and if you start a new one you get "this has already been discussed"; equally as snarky.

[jayjay]

I totally agree with you. You can't win - if you revive an old post you get the snarky "braaaaaaains" comments and if you start a new one you get "this has already been discussed"; equally as snarky.

The "We're SOOOOO Special" attitude here is kind of annoying. I do love the Dope...I've been here for over a decade now. But sometimes we're not only snooty, we're mean and incredibly egoistic. There ARE other message boards on the internet that are equally well-spoken. There ARE other message boards that are equally well-informed. Snopes, for example. Our offshoot, the Giraffe Boards, for another (which, while a bit more free-wheeling, consists largely of Dopers and former Dopers). The Dope is not unique by any means...other boards do what we do just as well, even if they don't have quite the traffic we do. And I have to note that the conceit that we're some kind of major message board hub or something is just that, a conceit. Our member base is tiny compared to a lot of other boards, and this attitude that we "have to keep the riff-raff out" is not conducive to keeping it fresh.

And, speaking of the Giraffe Boards, they're proof that snark can be constructive if you're willing to not take yourself too seriously. I do think that's one of the things that the Dope doesn't do well...we, as a board, tend to put on that noble face and spout off about our sacred charge, fighting ignorance. Which is silly...as someone posted in another thread, the purpose of the Straight Dope column is fighting ignorance. The purpose of the Straight Dope board is amusing ourselves.

[ReticulatingSplines]

If anything, coming via Google should make one LESS likely to revive a zombie; all search results from a message board come with a "Last post:" date. Try it. Of course, they're not paying attention. Therein lies the general problem.

[Indygrrl]

Goddamn it! I thought you were ranting about these idiots bumping five-year-old (or more) threads, not defending them! It really takes all of my willpower NOT to be nasty about it. Sure, in the grand scheme of life it's insanely minor, but that doesn't mean it's not annoying as shit.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to say, whyyyyyyy the fucking fuck is there a thread in CS where people are putting shit from 20+ year-old movies in a damn spoiler box???? For the love of everything holy, NO ONE is going to be "spoiled" by reading your comment about Back to the Future. And that's every post in a two page thread.

Honestly, people, do we have to have a presentation about when it's appropriate to revive an ancient thread, and go over the sort of things that really do belong in a spoiler box? Good grief.

[Una Persson]

I generally agree that the zombie jokes and mockery of newbies who bump an ancient thread need to stop. However, I want to point out that I do seem to notice a large number of oppositional-defiant-disorder newbies who suddenly come charging in, ignoring issues which have been completely hashed out and resolved in the thread, to trumpet their "unique" insight. This normally happens in the "Comments" forum, but also in GQ.

[YogSosoth]

In honor of this thread, anyone who agrees with the OP should bump up an old thread! :D

[srzss05]

It really takes all of my willpower NOT to be nasty about it.

Then you're one of the good ones. I swear most people here think it is a race to come up with the most asinine post first. This theory that people need some sort of "notice" that threads are old is asinine as well.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Sometimes I read through the posts and think, "Boy, I really agree with that one...oh, it was posted by me!"

I've had a similar experience, but it's more like "wow, that was a dickhead thing to... oh."

[chiroptera]

I admit to posting snarky comments a couple of times, but I've also posted "welcome to SD, and by the way this thread is six years old and most of the original posters are gone" type comments.

I see it as a courtesy, really - it will teach someone to check dates when they find a random thread online, sign up and post to it. I'm sure it's something many of us have done back when we were less experienced with this internet thingie; nothing wrong with a heads up.

As to snark - well, tough titty. If someone makes a mistake, then is scared away by a subsequent silly "braaaiiiins" post, then they weren't long for this board anyhow.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Thank you for those words of wisdom, Non Sequitur Smurf.

Let me explain it so even you, douchebag, can understand it, okay? When you create an atmosphere in which posters--newbies and oldbies alike--are under attack, and snarkiness is encouraged for insiders (mainly Mods and Mod-asskissers) but harshly discouraged for outsiders (newbies, who get mocked for posting here without understanding the rules, and experienced posters, who get banned when their posts offend the PTB) then you've created a place where old posters won't (or can't) contribute and new posters bail before they get started.

I get it that you enjoy that sort of place, but I'm trying to explain why this website is as lame as it is--you actively discourage decent posters from contributing, in a variety of ways,

[BigT]

That would be fine if all people did was make a "brains" joke or throw around a little harmless snark. However, lately, I've seen people act like total douchebags about it. Why does it upset you so much? Why do you think the entire Internet must believe that zombies are such horrible things?

The only reason I can come up with is that you are upset because you also didn't notice the date, and were about to reply. And then suddenly something made you realize it was old. If you couldn't read the date before reading, why do you expect the noobs to be more vigilant? And if that isn't why you get so upset, then why?

And don't think the Dope is special about this, either. I've been to several other forums, with different opinions on the subject, and all of them seem to get really, really upset if you don't do it their way. What's the point? Just kindly inform them of your preference, and then, if they still don't listen, then call out the hounds.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you on zombie policy does not mean they are a poor fit for this board.

[Kimstu]

This theory that people need some sort of "notice" that threads are old is asinine as well.

Technically, people may not need a notice to inform them of something that's right there in the datestamp of the post that they're reading. In practice, though, even experienced Dopers often do read through and even reply to old threads before noticing that they're zombies, so the zombie jokes can be helpful (I've certainly found them so, more than once).

Consequently, I don't take the zombie jokes amiss. And I'd like to see some actual evidence that zombie jokes actually are chasing away interesting potential new members from these boards before I start worrying about whether they should be deprecated. ISTM, as other posters have noted, that most newbie zombie-revivers are drive-by posters anyway.

[FXMastermind]

Trust me, it's not the occasional asshole screaming about a zombie thread that drives intelligent people away from this board.

[FXMastermind]

Before the howls and flames of the butthurt fill the thread, let me just add that whatever you are thinking right now, it says a whole lot about you, and very little about myself.

Of course the steady stream of invective and ill conceived flames, the inside jokes and the "I am so much better than you" mentality that many display, with no self awareness at all, that certainly couldn't have anything to do with anything.

Please continue.

[Czarcasm]

Let me explain it so even you, douchebag, can understand it, okay? When you create an atmosphere in which posters--newbies and oldbies alike--are under attack, and snarkiness is encouraged for insiders (mainly Mods and Mod-asskissers) but harshly discouraged for outsiders (newbies, who get mocked for posting here without understanding the rules, and experienced posters, who get banned when their posts offend the PTB) then you've created a place where old posters won't (or can't) contribute and new posters bail before they get started.

I get it that you enjoy that sort of place, but I'm trying to explain why this website is as lame as it is--you actively discourage decent posters from contributing, in a variety of ways,No one even brought up banning people for reviving zombie threads before you posted your childish rant. I think pushing arguments to extremes that aren't even possible does more to discourage people from posting then does calling out stupid when you see it.
edited to add-Just to head you off at the pass, so to speak-No one is talking about banning people for calling out people that revive old threads, either. Except for your insane little post, the topic just isn't being discussed.

[FXMastermind]

Well, you are a fucking idiot then.

[srzss05]

Technically, people may not need a notice to inform them of something that's right there in the datestamp of the post that they're reading. In practice, though, even experienced Dopers often do read through and even reply to old threads before noticing that they're zombies, so the zombie jokes can be helpful (I've certainly found them so, more than once).

However, if the people complaining about newbies not reading the dates before they post cannot do so themselves, it looks pretty silly when they complain about it. Either they don't need the notice, or they are hypocrites and there is a double standard here.

[Uzi]

Jesus, it's an old thread, not a personal attack against our grandmother. If the person has a good point, then read it and answer, if not then ignore like most of us do with the majority of posts in new threads. Much ado about nothing.

[Czarcasm]

I can see leaving a zombie thread open if someone is attempting to further the discussion, but if there is direct questioning of posters that have left that thread years ago(some even having left the message board itself), then that definitely needs to be pointed out, I would think.

[Justin_Bailey]

If they bump a years-old thread to add something positive, or even remotely topical or relevant it would be one thing. But the majority of these resurrections seem to be to repeat something that was disproven years ago, or to parrot something the thread had figured out by post #15. They don't freaking read the treads they are bumping. Those people are a net loss to any board anywhere, and don't deserve anything but derision and contempt. Fuck 'em.

This. A thousand times this.

Just the other day, someone bumped a thread about gay folks who surprised you when they came out. Nevermind the fact that the thread in question was like five years old and that we've also got a current thread on the same topic. That's cool, whatever. But the poster who bumped it decided to let us know that (paraphrasing): "A guy in KISS is big homo because I say he is!" Just what? And it's not like there wasn't a dozen posts before that pointing out the guy's long-term marriage and multiple kids. Wait, there was? Damn.

See, that's an idiot and he deserves any shit he gets.

Of course, if the Powers That Be really wanted to ever stop zombies, they could just set threads to autolock a year after the last post. But they don't, because forums are scary.

[Dangerosa]

But does this board desperately need legions more members who don't understand the workings of the internet well enough to realise that reading date stamps on whatever google spews up is a good idea?

I say be hard on them and the ones that weather the snark and learn from it are going to be keepers anyway. 99.99% of the rest are idiot one-post wonders. Who needs them?

How about a middle of the road? One where you point out that the thread is a few years old without making the new person feel like an idiot. Because being snarky not only gets rid of the idiots, it also gets rid of those that might turn out to be good members, but aren't going to invest any time in a place where they are abused - i.e. they have some self respect.

I've fallen for a few resurrected threads, and what clues me in isn't posting dates - I've never developed the habit of looking, but poster names. Especially when you go into a thread with three or four banned posters, but sometimes its "I didn't realize Jodi was back - oh, she isn't, its an old thread."

[Czarcasm]

Are there any links to some of the nastier zombie-related snark? I'd like to see what people are up in arms about.

[srzss05]

See, that's an idiot and he deserves any shit he gets.

I agree that in this case that ridicule is fine. But I don't think those are the posts jayjay is talking about, and in most cases they aren't some lame joke either.

Of course, if the Powers That Be really wanted to ever stop zombies, they could just set threads to autolock a year after the last post. But they don't, because forums are scary.

I agree with this as well, if so many people are really so upset.

[johnpost]

there are people new to computers and new to the internet each and every day, let's show some kindness to the newbs.

that said: there are some people who jump on each and every forum they find and have to 'me too' post as if the rest of the world cares. from the creation end they are excited until they learn there are hundreds like them everyday and when they come back to the forum they have to wade through others 'me too' postings and learn it's crap. doesn't anyone screen the calls around here?

i've seen new joiners resurrect a thread where the OP was banned. dates and status don't yet have meaning to them.

on many forums i've seen newbs answer the OP and without reading the thread to see that it's been answered once or twice or thrice. on technical forums threads might be closed when answered. on a wide multipurpose forum such as this (where members are smarter than the average bear) threads are left open for new content.

an appropriate to the topic zombie joke, in a non rude reply, is a challenge of wit. if it doesn't pop into my head immediately it might later. it should be an attempt to get a laugh or at least crack a smile, bonus points for coffee on the monitor.

[elucidator]

Compassion for slime mold, bacteria, prions, free floating strings of protein, sure. But noobs?

[YogSosoth]

I almost never read dates unless there's a reason to. It just doesn't seem like a big deal. If nobody replies, oh well. Next zombie thread I'm participating in I'm going to pretend like its not a zombie and address the OP...

[emcee2k]

Sixty-four posts and no one has actually said why it's bad to bump old threads.

[srzss05]

Sixty-four posts and no one has actually said why it's bad to bump old threads.

It's because it's not.

[Czarcasm]

Sixty-four posts and no one has actually said why it's bad to bump old threads.See post #57 for at least a partial reason. It makes no sense to bump an old thread to argue with people that:
1. Might have changed their minds in the years that followed
2. Might have left the board.
2.a. Might have left the board because they died.
2.b. Might have left the board because they were banned.

[jz78817]

doesn't this version of vBulletin offer the feature of auto-locking threads older than a certain date? If so, I would venture a guess that TPTB didn't want to do that and felt it was better to tolerate the occasional revived thread instead.

[Czarcasm]

doesn't this version of vBulletin offer the feature of auto-locking threads older than a certain date? If so, I would venture a guess that TPTB didn't want to do that and felt it was better to tolerate the occasional revived thread instead.The trouble with that idea can be found in this thread-the people that have no problem with zombie threads vs. the people that hate zombie threads. There is no consensus.

[Colibri]

The more joking ones are fine. It's the condescending, smug, angry, nasty ones that are a problem, and I'm seeing a lot more of them as time goes on. Let it freaking rest. If you feel the need to inform about the zombie rule, inform gently, preferably without sharp words and condescending attitude.

I'm going to second this. As a moderator, I would really prefer it if people didn't berate newbies for resurrecting old threads, and also if they refrain from making cryptic and often lame zombie jokes. If you want to note a thread is old, fine, but you can be courteous about it. I would also like to point out that there is no rule prohibiting the resurrection of old threads in GQ as such, as long as new information is being contributed.

Otherwise you're going to shrink the membership even further than it already has shrunk.

Our membership in terms of active posters has held steady for quite a few years. We had an uptick in spammers joining when we first allowed Google Search, but much of this seems to have been alleviated recently with a new filtering system.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Sixty-four posts and no one has actually said why it's bad to bump old threads.

Something to do with the butterfly effect, I think. Start messing around with the past, we could suddenly find ourselves on a board with an archconservative elucidator and a hippie rabble-rousing Starving Artist, where the mods are universally loved and the board's mission is "FITING GYANT ANTS."

[cmyk]

About 5 years from now I'm going to respond to this thread and give my thoughts on the OP.

[jayjay]

About 5 years from now I'm going to respond to this thread and give my thoughts on the OP.

May we all still be here to respond. :)

[Cat Whisperer]

And avatars - for the love of God, can't we join the twentieth century and get avatars already?

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

Are there any links to some of the nastier zombie-related snark? I'd like to see what people are up in arms about.
Yeah, I haven't seen this very much either. If anything, when a new poster revives an old thread 1) while acknowledging it's ancient and 2) actually adding some value to the thread, by answering a question that hadn't been answered before, for example, the response is usually quite positive.

I'm not one to make zombie jokes, as I don't find them especially funny. But I think we can all agree that some threads (relationship threads and the like, for example) just shouldn't be revived after a certain date. I'm okay with tolerating it if the thread found itself back on the front page for some reason and someone posted without looking at the timestamps, but for the one who dredged it up with Google Search (looking for what?) and had to post something, I don't see why we should be nice. Same thing for those who revive GQ threads with something that's either already been posted in the thread, or worse, something that's already been disproved somewhere in the thread. It's even worse if the response has bad punctuation, bad spelling or grammar, or no paragraphs, as is often the case.

I don't think we can blame that kind of behaviour on "being new to the Internet" either. It's feeling the need to put your grain of salt in any discussion, no matter how relevant it actually is.

[srzss05]

I don't think we can blame that kind of behaviour on "being new to the Internet" either. It's feeling the need to put your grain of salt in any discussion, no matter how relevant it actually is.

So are the "jokes." If it really bothers you, don't reply. People are just doing it to be clever, but they end up just looking stupid. I really get a kick out of those that say they "had" to do it (no, I'm not going to bother looking up posts that said that---you all know it happens).

This whole subject is a useless exercise anyway, as people will continue to do it, either through ignorance or thinking that they have the ultimate quip.

[ProbablyProcrastinating]

Let me explain it so even you, douchebag, can understand it, okay? When you create an atmosphere in which posters--newbies and oldbies alike--are under attack, and snarkiness is encouraged for insiders (mainly Mods and Mod-asskissers) but harshly discouraged for outsiders (newbies, who get mocked for posting here without understanding the rules, and experienced posters, who get banned when their posts offend the PTB) then you've created a place where old posters won't (or can't) contribute and new posters bail before they get started.

I get it that you enjoy that sort of place, but I'm trying to explain why this website is as lame as it is--you actively discourage decent posters from contributing, in a variety of ways,

This is not exactly true. It just creates an environment where only really snarky hard-headed idiots continue long enough to survive. But I think that is probably the aim of the snarkiness.

The whole Internet is lame. :rolleyes: Ffrom 4chan to the cheezburger network to Ask a Physicist, everyone thinks they are cool and the truth is we are all a bunch of dorks talking to ourselves.

It's not like people here are contributing to the meaning of life or anything. This isn't a fucking homeless shelter.

[Enderw24]

And what's the deal with airline food these days?

[Lord Ashtar]

Of course, if the Powers That Be really wanted to ever stop zombies, they could just set threads to autolock a year after the last post. But they don't, because forums are scary.

I suggested this a few years ago, and was quickly shot down by Tubadiva because they were afraid it would cause a black hole to open up in the SDMB server which would quickly bring about the death of the entire universe (or something).

[Lord Ashtar]

I'm not one to make zombie jokes, as I don't find them especially funny. But I think we can all agree that some threads (relationship threads and the like, for example) just shouldn't be revived after a certain date. I'm okay with tolerating it if the thread found itself back on the front page for some reason and someone posted without looking at the timestamps, but for the one who dredged it up with Google Search (looking for what?) and had to post something, I don't see why we should be nice.

Emphasis mine.

How about because there's no reason to be an asshole to a complete stranger for something as mild as bumping an older thread?

[Tamex]

The trouble with that idea can be found in this thread-the people that have no problem with zombie threads vs. the people that hate zombie threads. There is no consensus.

I am way more annoyed by the zombie jokes than by the zombie threads, so, yeah, lock 'em.

And avatars - for the love of God, can't we join the twentieth century and get avatars already?

New people who come here probably think these are all zombie threads.

[Colibri]

Same thing for those who revive GQ threads with something that's either already been posted in the thread, or worse, something that's already been disproved somewhere in the thread. It's even worse if the response has bad punctuation, bad spelling or grammar, or no paragraphs, as is often the case.

I don't think we can blame that kind of behaviour on "being new to the Internet" either. It's feeling the need to put your grain of salt in any discussion, no matter how relevant it actually is.

Of course, this is by no means a characteristic limited to newbies reviving old threads. We have plenty of posters who do the same thing in current threads, even some who have been around for years.

[chiroptera]

Ha - I have to laugh at myself; I just unwittingly posted to a zombie thread. Albeit after it had been resurrected for ten posts by the time I added to it.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=452576&page=3

So, umm, yeah.

[Vinyl Turnip]

How about because there's no reason to be an asshole to a complete stranger for something as mild as bumping an older thread?

Yeah. Has anyone come up with some examples of this "complete asshole" behavior, so we can all know what we're talking about? Most of us can probably agree that the "zombie thread" and "BRAAAAINS!" shit is an gag that's worn out its welcome, but that doesn't make it abusive. Got some examples of actual rudeness?

If someone is so sensitive that a "zombie" comment scares them away forever, I wish them best of luck finding an online forum that doesn't have its in-jokes.

[srzss05]

Ha - I have to laugh at myself; I just unwittingly posted to a zombie thread. Albeit after it had been resurrected for ten posts by the time I added to it.

At least the person that called attention to it wasn't obnoxious or cute. Not necessary, perhaps, but nothing to really complain about either. At least they had more to add than "ZOMBIE!!!!!!".

[Invisible Chimp]

I'm much more a fan of vampires over zombies, except for that Twilight shit. Buffy/Angel, True Blood, Dracula, Nosferatu, etc. vs. World War Z, Walking Dead, Shaun of the Dead, etc. Actually it's closer than I thought, but I still give my nod to the bloodsuckers.

[John Mace]

I noticed the explosion (well, increase) of zombie threads before I had heard the rule was relaxed. It was a bit disconcerting to think that we were suddenly being invaded from fluidic space or some such thing. Once you understand the new, relaxed rule about zombies it's really no big deal, and can even give some small bit of entertainment. It's more work for the mods, but if they're up for it, so be it. I'm not so sure it helps in terms of increased subscribers, but it really does not harm. I even chuckle at some of the zombie/brains jokes-- it takes real creativity to make something trite funny, and some people do succeed at that.

[elucidator]

That was pretty funny, John! What? Oh. Sorry.

[jayjay]

I noticed the explosion (well, increase) of zombie threads before I had heard the rule was relaxed. It was a bit disconcerting to think that we were suddenly being invaded from fluidic space or some such thing. Once you understand the new, relaxed rule about zombies it's really no big deal, and can even give some small bit of entertainment. It's more work for the mods, but if they're up for it, so be it. I'm not so sure it helps in terms of increased subscribers, but it really does not harm. I even chuckle at some of the zombie/brains jokes-- it takes real creativity to make something trite funny, and some people do succeed at that.

I agree that some of the zombie jokes are pretty creative and funny...Malacandra's "little-known 3rd verse" of Danny Boy in Post 21 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13773022&postcount=21) of this 2000 thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=27029) that got revived in 2011 is hilarious.

[jayjay]

In response to requests for examples of bad behavior, I'm still looking. I remember coming across at least 2 examples in the last couple of weeks, but I can't seem to find them in search.

[Colibri]

It's more work for the mods, but if they're up for it, so be it.

It's only more work in GQ in that there are more thread reports to read, since we don't routinely do anything about them. But for the most part they don't need to be reported, unless there is some other issue involved.

[John Mace]

In response to requests for examples of bad behavior, I'm still looking. I remember coming across at least 2 examples in the last couple of weeks, but I can't seem to find them in search.
Here's one, (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14498290&postcount=56) although the person posting it has been here < 1 month.

[Lust4Life]

I've been taken to task in the past because I haven't logged in and answered responses every single day.

Its not a job, and none of us have a duty to react to other posters points the following day.

Some people with lots of time on their hands, retired, unemployed etc. fail to realise that many of us have lives outside of these boards (work, travel and social life), and may !gasp, have several days or even weeks between logging in.

[not what you'd expect]

As someone fairly new to the dope, I don't mind the old threads at all. They usually end up being funny.

I like to see a new person be given the benefit of the doubt and be treated with courtesy. That doesn't have to be without humor.

You guys are a smart group. I love it here, but it took courage to post my first post. Almost everyone here is super nice and helpful and does use gentle humor, but not everyone is so nice.
I know I'm not as smart as most here, but that's what brought me here. I'm smarter now for reading this board. That's accomplishing the stated dope mission. But it can be intimidating to ask a question for fear of being teased about errors in grammar or something.

I don't mind the "me too" posts. Sometimes I'll do that as a way to subscribe to the thread or just because I want to play too. We're all just talking here, after all. But heck, they only take a second to read.

But I'd probably almost never ban anyone ever, so what do I know.

[BubbaDog]

We need to lock this thread. It's getting old.