# Good way to handle a zombie thread **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [August 5, 2011, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-way-to-handle-a-zombie-thread/591583 "2011-08-05T12:33:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2011, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-way-to-handle-a-zombie-thread/591583/1 "2011-08-05T12:33:08Z")
I thought that **TMFKA Invisible Wombat** handled [this zombie thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=435633) pretty nicely. His post stands out and alerts the rest of us that this is a zombie thread that has been bumped, and also lets the new poster know that she’s bumped a zombie (and also that all-blue text is not appreciated, which was another nice touch). Anyway, I don’t know if this is a new policy in general or just a one-time thing because that poster’s blue text was particularly egregious, but I thought it was good moderation. ---
**Author:** ![srzss05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@srzss05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/srzss05)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2011, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-way-to-handle-a-zombie-thread/591583/2 "2011-08-05T13:55:28Z")
Except it was bumped again, and this time someone made a stupid zombie “joke”. The post you are referring to was made a month and a half ago. ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2011, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-way-to-handle-a-zombie-thread/591583/3 "2011-08-05T13:57:26Z")
Hm, I see. Well, I admit I quit reading the thread after I got to the zombie notification, because, y’know, zombie thread. I do wonder if maybe it wouldn’t be a good idea to go back to the days of locking zombie threads, since they’re so prevalent lately. ---
**Author:** ![srzss05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@srzss05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/srzss05)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2011, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-way-to-handle-a-zombie-thread/591583/4 "2011-08-05T14:21:02Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > I do wonder if maybe it wouldn’t be a good idea to go back to the days of locking zombie threads, since they’re so prevalent lately. I agree if this really is a problem (I don’t see it as a “problem”), but TPTB don’t want to do that. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Sensitive](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/58956e/32.png) [@Darth\_Sensitive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Sensitive)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2011, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-way-to-handle-a-zombie-thread/591583/5 "2011-08-05T14:29:05Z")
I wish the zombie jokes would stop, as it makes finding threads about actual zombies tougher. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2011, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-way-to-handle-a-zombie-thread/591583/6 "2011-08-05T14:58:21Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > I do wonder if maybe it wouldn’t be a good idea to go back to the days of locking zombie threads, since they’re so prevalent lately. If you do that, Zombie Al Sharpton will march on your ass. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2011, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-way-to-handle-a-zombie-thread/591583/7 "2011-08-05T15:03:00Z")
**Gary** repeats the adage that “we try to discourage them because the original participants may not still be around to respond to you,” but I don’t see anything in that thread that would make that a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2011, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-way-to-handle-a-zombie-thread/591583/8 "2011-08-05T19:37:17Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > **Gary** repeats the adage that “we try to discourage them because the original participants may not still be around to respond to you,” but I don’t see anything in that thread that would make that a problem. He didn’t close that thread. It can be a problem; for example I had an instance of someone resurrecting a zombie just to say “hi” to an acquaintance who had died several years earlier. Whether or not we close a zombie depends on several factors. One of them is whether the zombie raiser is trying to engage in discussion with posters who are unable to respond. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2011, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-way-to-handle-a-zombie-thread/591583/9 "2011-08-05T20:02:55Z")
Oh, I understand that much. And I do appreciate a small reminder that it _is_ a revived thread, if it’s more than a few months old. I’m just saying that the adage shouldn’t really apply to all threads. Some threads are like conversations among people in a room, albeit recorded for posterity–it would indeed be weird and pointless to come into the room after everyone had gone away and start trying to talk to them. But other threads are like, well, bulletin boards. Someone addresses a general audience. Then someone else responds to that, but it’s still really for a general audience. Facts mostly remain facts, and interpretations don’t become less valid or interesting by their authors’ absence. IMO that kind of old thread _should_ be revived if anyone has more to say on the topic. If the original thread wasn’t derailed somewhere along the way, revival can be less cumbersome than a new thread with a lot of repetition and inconsistent, if any, links back. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2011, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-way-to-handle-a-zombie-thread/591583/10 "2011-08-05T20:49:37Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > Oh, I understand that much. And I do appreciate a small reminder that it _is_ a revived thread, if it’s more than a few months old. > > I’m just saying that the adage shouldn’t really apply to all threads. > > Some threads are like conversations among people in a room, albeit recorded for posterity–it would indeed be weird and pointless to come into the room after everyone had gone away and start trying to talk to them. > > But other threads are like, well, bulletin boards. Someone addresses a general audience. Then someone else responds to that, but it’s still really for a general audience. Facts mostly remain facts, and interpretations don’t become less valid or interesting by their authors’ absence. IMO that kind of old thread _should_ be revived if anyone has more to say on the topic. If the original thread wasn’t derailed somewhere along the way, revival can be less cumbersome than a new thread with a lot of repetition and inconsistent, if any, links back. This is exactly why we have relaxed the no-zombies rule. Your second category applies to many threads in GQ, and here we tend to leave them open if significant new information is being added, and there wasn’t a problem with it before. The first category is more like threads in IMHO and MPSIMS, and it’s more likely that zombies will be closed in these forums.