I keep seeing instances of the mods closing zombie threads.
Why do we even have zombie threads in the first place? Isn’t the board software configurable so that if a thread does not receive a post in 6 months (or whatever TPTB define as The Zombie Zone), it automatically closes?
This might work better in ATMB.
It’s probably too much of a strain on the hamsters.
I think “zombie threads” can be useful.
If a poster presents a problem, or situation that is not immediately resolved, that is to say can take months to resolve, what is wrong with them posting when they finally have a resolution?
The question is whether or not the board software allows separate configurations for each forum. Zombies are perfectly acceptable in the Café as long as the resurrecting post adds something meaningful.
Here’s a list of vbulletin features:
http://www.vbulletin.com/docs/html/appendix_2
Why not just start a new thread with a link to the old one?
Well, one reason is that those who were interested in the original thread will usually still be subscribed to that one, and so will get notified of the update.
I’ve zombified at least one thread, that I can think of off the top of my head. I wasn’t the original thread’s OP, but the message I wanted to post was very much an update on the original thread. It came down, for me, that I had found that there had already been some interest in the situation from the Dope when the event that I was posting about had been in the planning stages. So, I chose to acknowledge I was opening a zombie thread, and posted the update.
I never understand this rule either. Whenever someone follows the rules and starts a new thread some smart ass comes in to alert everyone that the topic has already been done in an older thread and you should know that if you bothered to search DUH. While that may be, it leaves new people out because maybe we have things to say! We want to participate! Why is everyone so desperate to be old school?
Because, you are often rebutting someone who is no longer around or no longer following that thread. Beating up on dudes who can’t fight back isn’t fair.
It’s a damn good rule.
Anecdotal evidence here, but I can’t recall a single “zombie” thread where the person who raised it (or even subsequent posts) took issue with someone who no longer posted.
Maybe I’ve just had amazing luck, but your point seems a non-issue in my eyes.
A good example of a thread closing. A debate which a lot of people who have already given their opinion can not reply.
A bad example of a thread closing. An entertainment oriented thread seeking opinions on finding some good morning radio.
So I’l agree with both sides. Sure it is necessary in some circumstances, I don’t like the reflex closing of all zombie threads either. Meh, not my call, just my opinion.
I just want to point out, not all zombie threads get closed automatically. If the new posts are sufficiently on-topic and non-rancorous, the mods seem to be willing to allow them to continue stumbling about. Though there seems to be a requisite “seriousness” factor for that, as well. IMNSHO, most game threads get killed when zombified, as do the powerful debate ones. But minor news seems fine to zombify, when an update happens.
The rule against reviving old threads is handled differently in different forums. In the more argumentative forums (like the Pit), very often resurrection of an old thread is like picking at a scab: many of the people are no longer around, the heated argument has been cooling for months and there’s no reason to fire it up again, etc.
In the more congenial discussion forums (like Comments on Cecil’s Columns or Cafe Society), zombie threads are usually met with a shrug of the shoulders.
So, enforcement of this rule, like most enforcement, is often situational. There are times when it makes sense to have only one thread on a topic, regardless of the time gaps in the middle, and there are times when we want to let sleeping dogs lie.
I always thought they were every bit as good as the Beatles, but didn’t get the promotion.
Maybe because zombie threads are promptly closed? It has happened in the past, along with jabs and rants about Banned posters.
Thanks, Dex.
That would present some practical problems. Either an independent process would have to monitor data, running in a perpetual loop, thereby eating up CPU and database resources with constant nonstop queries, or else a select query would have to be examined each time a thread is opened, initiating a conditional update if certain tests were positive. The latter is more palatable than the former, but even if there were plenty of server to do it, users would have to watch carefully because they might not notice the “Closed” button at the bottom until they have already written out their masterpiece. And then we’d be right back here in the Pit with demands to find a better way.
Can’t someone still do this in a new thread? Just post a link to the original thread and beat up on the dude all the same.
If one’s intention is to rebut the arguments of a now-departed poster, I suppose that one could do it in either a new thread or in a zombie. (I’m not sure why one would choose to do so–resurrecting a thread gives the attacked poster a second voice for a later audience.)
However, the more typical situation in GD or The BBQ Pit is that posters will not notice, immediately, that the thread is ancient and will begin reading the thread from the beginning. At that point, attacking earlier posts, (or, particularly in GD), earlier and now departed posters becomes more of an issue. Sometimes the posts that have been attacked in GD are points that the poster has already conceded–perhaps in a separate thread–or quotes from that post resurrect personal feuds that have since been resolved. In such cases, reviving the disagreement or the feuds is counterproductive. Attacking either the arguments or the person of a departed poster, particularly when the departed poster was the only one to hold that particular view, just makes the attacker look silly.
Threads in MPSIMS that ask after the updated status of a recent birth or earlier surgery are far less likely to raise hackles or cause embarrassment, so they tend to be left alone.