It’s usually situational, I’ve found. For instance, if the new post starts out by quoting or responding to prior posts, then splitting it off to start a new thread means the first post of the new thread is… confusing.
We (mods) are not allowed to edit posts without the express permission of the poster, aside from very minor stuff (like fixing links, un-parsing NSFW links, etc), so we can’t rewrite the new post. We could (and have on occasion) just add a footnote and link to the old thread. But again, there’s no blanket approach that covers all such resurrections.
Anyways, along comes a mod who says “this thread has gotten too big for its britches, zombie thread britches” or something like that, and locks the thread.
There seemed to be no point to this whatsoever, except that perhaps the moderator was simply looking for something to do. Several people had harmlessly re-begun enjoying the discussion of this non-serious topic. Why not leave them and the thread alone? What’s the purpose of this kind of expenditure of a moderator’s time?
So, instead of the poster starting a new thread and providing a link to the old one, you think it would be easier to have the moderator lock off the old thread, create a new thread, and move posts from the old thread to the new thread.
Easier for who?
I don’t think he suggested that. As far as I can tell, he’s saying he saw no reason for the mod to do anything to the thread at all.
Though I will admit that, if it’s that much more difficult to split a thread than to merely lock it, then the board’s software is pretty poorly designed.
A simple script that runs once a night or once a week or whenever you want that looks at the date of the last message in a thread and closes the thread if it is more than XX days in the past - this will solve the problem quite nicely for everyone.
Clearly it would seem to require more work by the mods (how much more than merely locking the original thread, I don’t know). Even so, the gain to be had by the extra work would be balanced by:
decreasing the risk of turning off a new user
facilitating the continued enjoyment of the topic/thread by any interested user
the good optics of not only responding to user feedback on this particular problem, but also in implementing a solution that seems to satisfy the needs/wishes of many on both “sides” of the issue
When you write it out like that, it sounds like a lot of work, but really it’s barely a minute. And how often would it come up, maybe three or four times in a month? And it would be at your discretion, of course, because not every situation would warrant the effort.
Anyway, it just seemed like a better suggestion than expecting a newbie to know to do it.
If a starting a new thread for an ignorant poster is too much hassle, perhaps some boilerplate text to paste in, saying “unfortunately, we prefer continued discussion in old threads to be made in a new thread with a link to the old [instructions]”. (That might also be useful if old threads are locked, to indicate whether or not continued conversation would be welcome.)
They already seem to do that, and it seems quite rare that the person comes back and posts an actual thread. Whether this is because they weren’t that interested in the first place, or if they were turned off by having their first post locked, I don’t know.
And, obviously, you would only do this for true noobs.
Do you really think new users are such delicate flowers that ‘sorry, this thread is a decade old, we’d really rather it stay dead’ will drive them off?
Some, possibly, but I’m sure not most. Most “new” people are also familiar with other message boards that also frown on resurrecting old threads, but then again, most others that don’t like it lock old threads automatically.
I actually will try to do it when I have the time. In the thread that generated this one, I didn’t, but I probably should have taken a few seconds to clarify what I was doing and why. OTOH, the newly registered person never returned, and so would not have seen what I wrote. OTOOH, I didn’t know that when I closed the thread.
One reason this makes sense is that, if the newcomer (or existing member who wants to continue a discussion) is encouraged to start a new thread and link to the old one, it pretty much forces them to summarize the old thread, at least briefly, to set the context for the new post. To me this makes sense, as it sets the bar rather high for continuing a 10-year discussion.
So? Preferred SDMB policy apparently would have me make a new thread, on the same subject, with a link back to the old thread. Then in the new thread I make my post, and Long Gone Poster is still long gone and unable to reply. What’s been accomplished? Either somebody else will be able to make arguments along the lines of what Long Gone Poster would have, or not–either way, what’s the difference in it being one thread or two?
Based on this thread, the mods have held considerable behind-the-scenes discussion, and we’ve agreed on new rules On resurrecting old threads. (The stuff that’s new is in blue.)
Basically, the default in most forums will be to leave the thread open, but the post a mod-comment (although anyone can post such a comment) to alert people that it is an old thread being revived. However, under certain circumstances (more common in the Pit, GD, and MPSIMS), we will close the thread.
Also, please note that this is “etiquette” rather than a “rule.”
And, we’re happy for people to continue to report zombie threads – we may not close them, but we will at least post an alert so that readers understand there was a four-year hiatus in the middle of the thread.
I’ve suggested this before, but I think it bears repeating.
I’m assuming the SDMB is based on a SQL Server platform. Frankly, it doesn’t matter - it could be Oracle or MySql or whatever. Simply establish a script that runs on the first of the month, examines all message headers still marked active and finds the date of the last message posted in that thread. If that date is more than XX days old (to be determined by The Powers That Be), mark the message header as closed.
That way, threads that crawl off to the elephant graveyard of obscurity eventually will automatically “die” because of inactivity.
Another idea to add to your changed policy is to have the mod that decides to leave a zombie open could edit the OP of the zombie to add a line at the top in some bright obvious color that says it’s a zombie and that there is an x (month/year) gap in the conversation at post #y.
