Why would a moderator request that posters not pump old threads? If someone looks for a topic via the search function and comes across a relevant thread, why in the world would there be a rule that one cannot post to it?
Probably the biggest reason is that it’s just plain confusing. When most people open threads to read, they don’t immediately note the date that it was originally posted. This has happened to me on more than one zombie thread.
I see Jill’s point.
Is the date really more relevant than the content?
I think I used to kind of understand TPTB’s reasoning behind the ‘no zombie’ rule, but the reasons are escaping me right now.
I think the rule is most strictly enforced in the fora where there is a lot of debate. In those cases, it’s not very fair to be ripping apart the arguments made by a guy who hasn’t been a member since 2002.
I thought it made the hamsters (or whatever rodents that work the macinery these days) quite unhappy.
From the Posting Guidelines FAQ
If you agree that that some threads have been dormant too long to be properly revived, then you are faced with a decision based on how long is too long. Given different fora and topics, that can be pretty subjective, so I think the mods should give substantual leeway to us mere peon posters.
Reviving a zombie thread can happen by mistake and should not be a capital crime.
Why? What do they know about the content? I cannot conceive of a good reason why the indexing and thread-assembly software cares much about which posts go with what thread and when, unless some are stored in a less-accessible location (they’re not).
It’s strictly a policy guideline for a board that works well, logically and for people.
WHOOSH 
But the mods usually just close the thread with a note saying it is a zombie thread. They don’t even issue a warning or anything like that.
I would recommend that the rule be waived in a forum like GQ, where (hopefully) one is dealing with facts and figures. It makes more sense in GD or the other forums I think.
ALso, The-Great-and-Terrible Mods tend to be more flexible with the rule in Cafe since someone might see a movie/show later and may want to comment on it.
Zombie threads are a problem, no doubt. In GQ and CS, they are reasonably tolerated. In GD and The Pit, no. Just because you just found the thread and want to comment on it is no reason the rest of the board should have to wade through all the previous dreck. If it’s that important, start a new thead.
It pretty much is. As a moderator in General Questions, I tend to ignore posters emailing me just because a zombie thread has arisen. I take each thread and judge it on its merits.
If you’re adding new info, go for it. If you’re just making a smart-assed comment, I might close.
Each GQ mod can act on this or not. Some do, some don’t.
Actually, there often is. In fora where exchanges can get heated, the heat can often become personal.
Opening a thread to discover that an old antagonist is (apparently) re-opening an old would that one believes has been settled can be disturbing. Similarly, discovering that one is being attacked for a thought expressed months (or years) earlier that one has forgotten even posting tends to irritate people. Rehashing old arguments that were thought to have been put to rest (if never settled) is also disquieting. Then there is the contribution that is totally nonsensical and just demands a response that the original posters ignored by considering the source but a new poster will rush out to rebut–starting a new round of energy wasting efforts or allowing an ancient troll to get one last round of excitement.
A couple of examples I’ve experienced:
I started a MPSIMS thread about my dog being diagnosed with terminal cancer. A few months later I re-opened the thread, giving closure that he finally had to be put down. Seemed like a good idea at the time. A well meaning doper responded, after only reading the first few posts, assuming he was still alive. So I ended up asking to have the thread locked, as I can see it was an honest mistake, but I really wasn’t in a good place to read similar responses. link to thead see post #19
Next, check out posts # 124, 145, and 150 in This thread. This was a zombie raised over six months later, which I failed to notice, and I had no earthly notion that I’d already posted that comment…hey, at least I kept my story straight! Couldn’t even defend myself, as that would just keep the zombie lurching forward.
Anyhoo, after these incidents, I quite understand the advice not to raise zombies.
Those are good examples Kevbo. I was trying to come up with some myself, but was drawing a blank.
Ultimately the point is that if there’s really more life in a topic, you can always start a new thread and, if necessary, link to the old one. There’s no policy around here against repeating thread topics.
Whenever I link to a really old thread, I usually ask a mod to lock down the old one. Otherwise people will post to both threads and that defeats the purpose.
This is a good example why we don’t allow bumping old threads (in the Pit, at least).
(I’m not picking on Anaamika or anyone else, by the way, zombies pose an inherent threat and she just happened to be the one caught that time.)