Should there be a 'waiting period' before posting?

About This Message Board
1

I have wondered this in the past, but decided to ask about this once I got myself in another zombie thread.

And it might have been asked before, if so slap me down.

Fairly new here myself, but it seems that there are quite a few threads resurrected by a user who probably found the thread during a Google search, created a user name, and posted a reply.

If you’re like me and don’t pay attention to the dates of the posts, ya never notice.

I also think it would be interesting to see how many of those users stick around and log in regularly after their initial flurry of posts.

Anyway, a solution might be to require a waiting period after creating a user name. You know, build in 24 hours or so, so that folks aren’t popping in to commenton a zombie and then popping out forever.

OTOH, there have been some pretty amusing threads brought up that I otherwise wouldn’t have gotten to enjoy.

2

Must be the beginning of a new month…another thread in ATMB about zombie threads.

3

If people had to wait to post, chances are they wouldn’t post at all.

4

And in many cases, that would be a good thing. Drive-by zombie bumpers are a no value added class of posters. I think a waiting period is an excellent idea.

5

On another board I post on you’re first five posts have to be mod approved. Problem was, it either didn’t say that or I didn’t notice it so when I couldn’t find my post I posted again, then emailed a mod.

On the one hand, I wouldn’t have a problem with a system like that. OTOH, I really don’t think we need it as the spam isn’t that big of a problem so far as I can tell and I’m firmly in the ‘let’s allow zombie threads*’ camp.

BTW, Sicks, at 13 months and 600+ posts you’re hardly ‘fairly new’. All you have to do to earn your wings is hunt down and read the Horror of Blimps.

*I think we should allow them, but I wouldn’t mind some sort of warning system put in place so they’re aren’t risen by accident.

6

That sounds like a bad thing when you say it. :frowning:

7

Well, I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. I don’t think that folks who come in and resurrect threads like that understand what they’re doing. They think “Hey, that’s what I Googled!” And no, it’s not the end of the world…but even though I’m new-ish ahem see below I still feel like having the place treated like that is somewhat…beneath it.

And yet, I still feel new, compared to almost everybody I recognize by name as a ‘regular’…so in another 13 months and 600, I’ll re-evaluate :cool:

8

I believe that we should have a strict policy of requiring all new posters to wait until they complete the registration process before posting, and not let them post a second before that.

9

No.

Next question.

10

Some new posters do commit non-cardinal sins, like resurrecting ancient threads or drive-by posting; and some are cadinal sins like trolling or advertising/spamming.

First, the practical difficulties:
(1) Without some sort of monitoring, a 24-hour holding room doesnt seem to me to solve any issues.
(2) Mods don’t have time to review all new posts. Even if we did, yeah, we’d catch zombie threads (if we read carefully – we can fall into the same trap), and we’d catch spam/advertising a little earlier, but we wouldn’t stop the trolls because we usually can’t detect them until after several posts. (Just because someone holds an unpopular opinion doesn’t mean they’re trolling.) So, basically, it’s a lot of work for not much result.

Second, the conceptual difficulty: we need to attract new posters. Frankly, it’s difficult enough for new posters, there’s a certain cliquishness here. Note that many posters respond to an old thread revived by just saying “zombie.” The new poster doesnt understand what the heck that means; unless there’s kindness and explanation, that person is going to leave. (Don’t tell me that they can read the specialized vocabulary and the rules; most new posters don’t and don’t want to do that much work, they just want to see what happens when they post.)

I, frankly, think it’s terrific that a new poster has gone to the trouble of finding the relevant thread to post in, even if it’s a few years old. New posters typically come here because they’ve found something (Cecil’s column, or a discussion topic) that they want to respond to. Hurray for them, and we should be encouraging, not discouraging.

If we discourage new posters, we won’t last long.

I do agree, it would be interesting to compare first posts (or “flurry of activity”) with later activity and sticking-around-ness, but that also would be a lot of work.

So, the bottom line: we don’t think zombie threads are that much of an issue. In several forums, they’re not an issue at all. Instituting some sort of monitoring system would mean LOTS of work, for very little results. I think the expression is, “Using an elephant gun to shoot a fly.”

11

Fair enough! And a much more helpful reply than this:

Or this:

12

I waited too long and forgot what I was going to post.

13

Come back in a couple of years and post it then.

14

Or next month when the next thread complaining about zombie threads is started.

15

Yeah, Reviving old threads is a horrendous crime against nature and must be prevented from happening ever, at all costs. Let’s do all we can to discourage new posters. Then, eventually, the board as a whole will become a zombie, with no-one posting at all, and the abomination of a revived thread will never occur again.

16

It might be a good idea for there to be a waiting period before you can start a thread. We do seem to get a lot of serial thread starters who end up being banned in short order.

17

What if their first thread is a response to a current column? A large percentage of those are started by newcomers and such a policy would definitely stifle conversation.

18

I realize zombification of threads can be annoying, but at least for now, the best and most likely solution to accidentally responding to a post from 2003 is just looking at the post dates. We don’t want to discourage people from joining this board, and I don’t think most people would be willing to wait through a prolonged registration and review process just to ask a few questions or respond to a column.

19

Now look, I know that the board has to have new posters to keep itself going.

But do you really think this guy is going to be sticking around for a cuppa and some good conversation?

This is stuff for Yahoo!Answers. I feel like anyone who would like to be part of the Board wouldn’t have a problem holding their horses for a day in order to get in on the action.

I know, the decision has been made to not institute a waiting period. Just scrunching up my face and stomping my feet.

20

Probably not, but does it matter that much? You don’t have to earn the right to post here. It’s a message board, and as it is, it can be tough on newbies who don’t know the rules, or don’t pick up on the usual SDMB tone, don’t use spelling or grammar that is up to snuff, or revive a zombie thread. I don’t think we need to make the board less welcoming in the interest of avoiding some zombie threads. Those threads are usually marked pretty quickly by “Braaaains” jokes or mod notes, or they get closed. I think if you get rid of the immediate feedback, a lot of people wouldn’t come back at all, and I don’t think that’s good for the board.