If it is an uncontroversial thread that sorely wants updating, it would seem diplomatic to start a new one and link to the old in the OP so that people can review.
I can’t wait for 11-26-2004, when I am going to bump this thread!! 
Let me see if I can’t muddy the water a bit here. About three weeks ago I bumped a three year old wherein the Marfa Lights were discussed. A magazine I receive presented some new information and gave a credible explanation for the phenomenon.
I remembered the thread and searched, and it is apparently the only thread in GQ that has ever mentioned the Marfa Lights. Now I know the lay of the land around here, but after thinking about it, it seemed the best place to post the new perspective was in the old thread, in part because I had a feeling one of the original participants would be interested (he was).
So, in this case:
• it was in GQ
• it wasn’t light and fluffy MPSIMS
• it wasn’t an old catfight in the Pit with wounds to be reopened
• no odious characters from the past were involved in the initial discussion
• it wasn’t a 200 reply monster
• most of the original participants are still around
• it was relevant, fresh information, not a wisecrack or some such.
What sayest thou, Lynn and Arnold, was that an acceptable bump?
That’s an interesting wrinkle, Ringo - what if a side aim is to garner the attention of someone who might not see a new thread, for whatever reason? (Say the person doesn’t frequent the boards like they used to, but they have email notification on.)
Ringo - I would still prefer that a person open a new thread with a link to the old one, just as a matter of principle, but in your case bumping the old thread was reasonable. And anyway I trust that you have good judgment about these things, you’ve been here long enough to know how the SDMB works.
bump
Why don’t the Mods lock the old threads then? Is that just too much work or could it be done automatically? It takes a while to learn all the rules here. The guidelines in ATMB are hard to read and still don’t cover everything. Inevitably, newbies are going to do this without realizing it’s a problem.
I don’t know, chula, you honestly don’t think it would be intuitive not to bump two-year old threads? Like, maybe it wouldn’t be the most timely thing in the world?
Maybe I’m wrong, but I think that most newbies have enough common sense not to do it. In any case, I don’t think the mods need to take the extreme measure of locking all old threads. Besides, what’s the cutoff for “old”, anyway?
But aren’t non-question threads in GQ prohibited? If Ringo was to open a thread that consisted of “Here’s this new information that relates to an old thread:” and then gave that info, there’s really no question.
Judging from the questions on this thread, some people don’t understand the reasons for the policy. I don’t think it’s at all intuitive, but maybe that’s because I don’t spend as much time on message boards as other people. I could imagine the rule being the opposite: “Why’d you open a new thread when there’s already a thread on this subject? Don’t you realize that having too many threads creates a problem for managing the board?” I mean, in real life you don’t start a new file every time you have something to add, just because the file’s been in the cabinet for a couple weeks.
So what happened?
:dubious:
Sigh. Great idea. Torture the hamsters by bumping a zombie thread about reviving zombie threads.
Talk about piling insult on top of injury.
This is locked. Killed. Staked and buried at a crossroads.
TVeblen
Pit Mod