# How far back should someone go to correct or augment a thread? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [August 27, 2008, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-should-someone-go-to-correct-or-augment-a-thread/461485 "2008-08-27T23:19:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Jackknifed\_Juggernaut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de053/32.png) [@Jackknifed\_Juggernaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackknifed_Juggernaut)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2008, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-should-someone-go-to-correct-or-augment-a-thread/461485/1 "2008-08-27T23:19:41Z")
In [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=471903) thread, **Bites When Provokes** asks for upbeat songs. Without ever listening to the lyrics, I recommended _Handlebars_ by Flobots. It sounded upbeat to me. It turns out that the song ends in nuclear holocaust. I’d like to go back in and correct my post, but no one has added to it in over 2 months. So it seems like it’s not worth fixing. But that doesn’t mean that people aren’t viewing the thread. I wouldn’t want to continue to mislead them. [This](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=325443) thread ended up getting locked because I added to it 3 years later. But my addition was relevant to the thread. The moderator suggested I start a new thread? Is there a policy or guideline on this? ---
**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 27, 2008, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-should-someone-go-to-correct-or-augment-a-thread/461485/2 "2008-08-27T23:32:36Z")
From the Faq on [Guidelines and Etiquette on the SDMB](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697100#post7697100) (#4): > [@](#): > > What if I want to continue / add to the discussion on a topic that was mentioned in an old thread? > > Generally, we prefer you start a new thread with a link to the old thread. Often, an old thread includes statements from posters who are no longer members, and so cannot reply. It’s therefore “unfair” to re-open old discussions; such practice is usually called a “zombie thread.” (A general guideline for “old” would be a thread older than three months.) However, the rules on reviving old threads are different for the different forums. In General Questions, Comments on Cecil’s Columns, Comments on Staff Reports, and Cafe Society, it is acceptable to revive an old thread if you have some substantive comment to add. (Note that “thank you for answering my question” is just plain good manners, and acceptable. However, reviving an old thread just to say “I agree” is considered bad form.) Your first example is in CS, and it is under the suggested guideline for time limits, so that would probably be permissible. Personally, I’m not sure it is worth reviving it just to correct a post of the kind you mention, especially since a large number of songs were mentioned and yours was just one of them. The second example, as a three-year-old thread in IMHO, should definitely have been linked to rather than revived. ---
**Author:** ![Jackknifed\_Juggernaut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de053/32.png) [@Jackknifed\_Juggernaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackknifed_Juggernaut)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2008, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-should-someone-go-to-correct-or-augment-a-thread/461485/3 "2008-08-27T23:49:38Z")
Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Chez\_Guevara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/aeb1de/32.png) [@Chez\_Guevara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chez_Guevara)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2008, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-should-someone-go-to-correct-or-augment-a-thread/461485/4 "2008-08-28T10:56:50Z")
[QUOTE=Colibri] Your first example is in CS, and it is under the suggested guideline for time limits, so that would probably be permissible. [/QUOTE] If I want to add a substantive comment to a CS thread, or to a thread in one of the other three forums singled out in the guidelines, it is acceptable to do so even if the thread is older than three months. I do not think I have ever seen an old thread closure denoted by something like “Post not substantive - thread closed”. The message is normally along the lines of “Zombie thread - aims shotgun”. When a moderator sees, or is apprised of, the re-emergence of a thread older than three months, is it the practice to make a judgement call regarding the substance value of the resurrecting post, or is the thread closed regardless? Perhaps someone could point me in the direction of an old thread, in GQ or CS, which was revived by a substantive comment and allowed to live happily ever after. ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2008, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-should-someone-go-to-correct-or-augment-a-thread/461485/5 "2008-08-28T12:20:32Z")
Why revive an old thread when starting a new one works just as well? If you want to correct something specific you said in that thread, provide a link to that post – but in general, I don’t want to read a conversation that happened six months or a year ago. By linking to the previous, you allow those who _do_ want to read through an old conversation the option to do so, but you’re not excluding those who are around now who didn’t participate. (“Oh, geez, I can’t say X – **PosterQ** , who I’ve never heard of and doesn’t seem to be around anyway, made pretty much the same point two and a half years ago.”) ---
**Author:** ![Chez\_Guevara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/aeb1de/32.png) [@Chez\_Guevara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chez_Guevara)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2008, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-should-someone-go-to-correct-or-augment-a-thread/461485/6 "2008-08-28T13:46:19Z")
[QUOTE=twickster] Why revive an old thread when starting a new one works just as well? [/QUOTE] The question is not about the relative merits of starting a new thread _versus_ adding a post to an old one. I am asking whether or not moderators adhere to the guidelines posted by **Colibri** above. ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2008, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-should-someone-go-to-correct-or-augment-a-thread/461485/7 "2008-08-28T14:07:37Z")
Yes, mostly we do, but it’s a case by case judgment call. ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2008, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-should-someone-go-to-correct-or-augment-a-thread/461485/8 "2008-08-28T14:28:14Z")
[QUOTE=Chez Guevara] Perhaps someone could point me in the direction of an old thread, in GQ or CS, which was revived by a substantive comment and allowed to live happily ever after. [/QUOTE] This is fairly common in CCC and CSR. [I’ve Actually SEEN a Skin-shade (I think)](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=259670) is currently on the first page in CCC, resurrected after four years. [On Airplane lift](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=324584) was revived earlier this year in CSR, going back to sleep a few months ago. And I happen to remember… [Where does that stereotypical “oriental” song come from?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=300466) in GQ and [That Chinese (???) -sounding riff](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=299058) in CS, both of which were on the same topic, were revived after a year of hibernation. ---
**Author:** ![SkipMagic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skipmagic/32/20706_2.png) [@SkipMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkipMagic)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2008, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-should-someone-go-to-correct-or-augment-a-thread/461485/9 "2008-08-28T14:55:51Z")
It’s also fairly common in Cafe Society. I think I’ve only closed one thread there for being resurrected by a non-substantive post; otherwise, we let the threads live even if roused after a year or two’s slumber. Typically, though, revived threads in CS have something interesting added to them and there’s no need to close them. In MPSIMS, however, while we do consider the reviving post, we typically close the zombie threads right away. It’s pretty rare that we let a zombie thread live, and when we do it’s usually because it’s just over the zombie date, or some other reason which doesn’t pop up all that often.