shouldn’t we be less curt with moderating actions towards someone new to the boards - Ask the cancer patient(s)? not everyone is savvy to the latest nuance and etiquette of board culture. in fact, i’ll say that even an explanation that a new thread is in order will not be enough. it may be a bit much to expect someone new to create an OP which they’ll probably not know what to do with.
perhaps the moderator might split the thread on their behalf, or something else a little bit more welcoming?
I think the mods could at least inform the new poster that resurrecting old threads is generally frowned upon and ask the new poster to please start a new one.
In your example I think the mod was rude. A new poster comes in and contributes to the board and the mod shuts it down with “Zombie thread closed.” I think it’s rude to expect everyone in the world who might someday post to the board to know that the term “zombie” refers to an old thread. This is the only board I post to that uses that term and I had not heard it used in that way until I started posting here.
So the new poster comes back in a few hours or a day or so to see if anyone commented on their post and they see “Zombie thread closed” they might be confused. I know I would be. I would think," Wait what? Why did they close the thread right after I posted? And what the hell is a zombie thread?" I might be inclined to not come back.
I think a little explanation on why the thread was closed to a new poster would be courteous. Now if it is a veteran poster and they resurrect a zombie thread then screw 'em and they should have to send me $10, a puppy or some ice cream.
Usually the mods are really nice about zombie threads being resurrected by new posters. That shut down does seems unnecessarily curt. With google searching I imagine this situation will be become more, not less common. Treating new posters kindly about this issue should be the goal.
This is the first time I’ve seen a mod close a zombie thread without explaining to the new poster what the deal is.
Agree, and generally I do include a message to a newbie who resurrects a zombie when I close the thread, including an explanation of what the term means and why we prefer that they start a new thread.
Not going to speak for Ellen Cherry on this; she’s aware of this thread and will probably come along when she has a moment to respond.
twickster, moderator
Why don’t you just close threads after they’ve reached a certain age so nobody accidentally posts in them?
Just curious. I’m sorry if it’s been asked a zillion times before. 
couldn’t we do more than offer explanations though? it seems like a pity to scare away someone who might have personal experiences to contribute. they might not know how to start a new thread, even if they do a mod will probably have to come in again and put it at the correct forum…
The newbie in question, frankly, posted to two old threads last night, both of which I closed for being zombies. In the other thread Anyone here with wound VAC experience? TMFI! I did post a note —
But if you all think it would be helpful to frankly, I’ll certainly go back and say the same thing in the cancer thread.
I would guess it would have to be done automatically. The problem with this is that different forums have different rules for what qualifies as a “zombie” thread, and I don’t think they can set each forum’s close date individually.
I for one am happy to be courteous and welcoming, but newbies should read the rules, guidelines, etiquette, and technical threads in ATMB – which I generally recommend that they do – not expect a mod to spoon-feed them that info.
Yes, that’s the ideal, on any message board, and not just on this one. However, you aren’t ever going to stop newbies jumping in without having read all the rules – and if they have experience posting on other boards, they will find this board’s zombie rule is a new thing, not found almost anywhere else. So, when the poster is new here, I think you should always explain the rule.
I thought the guidelines was that bumps of old threads were cool if new and relevant info was being added.
Looks like new and relevant info was added in both cases.
Is it too much to ask for the mods to reach a quorum on how to deal with these threads and then dole it out consistently?
And I thought you should start a new thread, and provide a link to the old thread for added context.
In the current instance, I felt that the topics he bumped were old enough that the participants might no longer be around, or in that situation any longer.
And so, I suggested a new thread, because people currently facing the problem could chime in with their current situations. Nothing would exclude others who had faced such matters in the past from participating as well. But the whole thing would be a current discussion, not an old one from a year and a half ago. You could count on it being new, active information.
So, that was my thinking. It’s a case-by-case thing. In this case, I thought it better to advise frankly to start something fresh.
And I do. There was the additional suggestion that I then explain how to start a new thread and how to link to the old one. I am not willing to go that particular extra mile, which is why I point people to ATMB.
What’s interesting is that not only was that instant thread previously zombie bumped in May of 09, but also had participation from a moderator after the previous said bump. The last zombie bump was no different than the current.
A good example of the inconsistent application of the vague board rules here. It happens almost every day in GQ.
It seems the policy is, “No zombies unless, well, we say so.”
Is there any objective point at which “new and relevant” info will allow the thread to stay open? Or will this continue to be strictly subjective, up to the whims of the moderator happening to be reading the thread at the time?
Nope, like so much of the moderation around here, it’s based on the judgment of the moderators. We generally operate in terms of basic guidelines while understanding there are always exceptions.
Thus there are different rules for “how old is too old” by forum (the standard is generally laxer, e.g., in Cafe Society) and by type of thread (something about straight information is more apt to be left open; a discussion, esp. a contentious discussion, is more apt to be closed since some or all of the previous participants may no longer be around).
That’s life on a moderated message board for you, sorry. We mods do the best we can, but every situation is different, and so our reactions are also sometimes different.
Probably should, since you don’t know which thread they will view first.
this place has an instruction manual?! well i certainly didn’t read them, i’m sure our cancer in remission person didn’t and i’m off to imho to ask the rest. throwing the manual at non-troll, obvious newcomers who might have something fresh to contribute just doesn’t seem like a sound business approach to me.
sometimes it seems we put more effort in keeping people* out than getting people in.
*trolls
No one threw the manual at him, shijinn. I did explain, in one of his bumped threads. I also said hello and welcome! And when it was pointed out that it might have been helpful if I’d posted the explanation in both bumped threads, I did that very thing.
I guess I’m not sure why you’re so irate here.