http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17905842&postcount=15
Is that the rule? Should I have pointed out that the question wasn’t answered and that I am interested?
Really? I thought the explanation - and rule - was quite straightforward. Don’t bump zombies unless you have something useful to add. Is it your contention that your post was “something useful”?
I can’t say whether that would have mattered to the mod or not, but I certainly didn’t have a CLUE that that was what you were attempting to communicate. Also, as I understand it, in a case like that, it would be better to start a new thread and link to the old one, rather than just bumping it and hoping someone will come along with an answer this time.
Personally, I don’t understand that reasoning.
What difference does it make if the thread is a day old or 3 years old when the conversation picks back up. Plus, we have people complaining that we’re scaring off new members when we yell “ZOMBIE” or “BRAINZZZZ” or chastise them for their language skills in a new thread, but someone should go take a look and see how many new members stick around after a thread they bump gets closed down 15 seconds later.
Granted, many of them probably weren’t going to stick around anyways even if the thread took off, but I’m curious how many of them said ‘screw it’ and left to find greener pastures.
I’ll say what I’ve always said, either leave old threads open or make a hard and fast rule that threads beyond a certain age (say, no activity in a year) can’t be bumped and lock them if they are.
Yes, I know ‘old members might not be around’. But how does that change if someone has ‘useful information to add’?
Again, allow them all or lock them all.
Agreed with Joey P. Besides all that he said, it makes sense to me to keep all the information on the subject of the original thread in that thread.
It was a joke. Resulted in a thread closing that’s all. Move along people, nothing to see here.
Do you mean useful like the one referenced in the OP?
It used to be the policy to close all zombie threads. We relaxed that rule some years ago. We now allow threads to be bumped in General Questions and some other forums if a poster actually adds some significant new information. We have had a number of threads productively revived after more than a decade.
The reason for closing other old threads is that the revivalist is often a spammer, or is a newbie who is attempting to engage a poster who is no longer around - just not posting anymore, banned, or sometimes dead.
If you really are interested in the subject of zombie thread, and have something to add, you can request that a moderator re-open it (I have done this in several cases), or else start a new thread and link to the old one.
As engineer said, you’ve been around long enough that you should be aware of such a basic rule. Here’s the rule from the FAQ.
You added no new information, and gave zero indication that you were actually interested in the question, and weren’t just making a joke more than a decade after the thread was last active. If you really are interested in the subject, I would suggest opening a new thread in GQ with a link to the old thread.
Seriously, reopening that thread with that post made absolutely no sense at all, especially in a forum designed to fight ignorance.
Yes, you should have. I wouldn’t have closed the thread.
You can look at any thread about zombies, I’ve always held the position that zombie threads should remain open shouldn’t be automatically closed. But I’ve gone on to say that if you want to close them, just close them as a matter of course and be done with it.
Besides, what difference does it make if someone makes a useless post on a day old thread or a three year old thread? If someone makes a joke post in a day old GQ post should we automatically lock that too?
The reasons for the policy are explained pretty thoroughly in the link in my post. I for one think it works well for allowing posting of new relevant information while avoiding the problems inherent in resurrecting old threads. I see no reason to revert to the old policy of automatically closing zombies.
Neither do I.
Locking them after a year would have prevented this Cafe Society “name that song” thread from happening
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15237179
The totally uninformative bump is at post 46, but what happens after is pure gold. The OP ( 8 years later) uses the power of Youtube to give a rendition of the song he was trying to identify, lo, those many years before…
n/m
That’s a pretty hard line to take on a benign subject. I still think you are afraid of zombies…either that or are really serious about protecting the community from the scourge.
Different situations. thewordwise posted a substantive answer to the OP and continued the conversation. What the … !!! bumped to post the lamest of lame in lame jokes with no indication of actual interest in the topic.
But why not think of the children or the community or the village or whatever. Ignorance continues…or maybe it’s just me…yeah, I’m sure it is.
Looks like engineer_comp_geek is a Game Room Nazi also. I wonder why the Racko card game thread wasn’t closed as “asked and answered” rather than moved though.
Those are the only two substantive rules issues I have so I’ll go away now.
I’m trying to be on your side, but it’s going to be tough if your start attacking mods and drifting your own thread.
Moderator Note
Let’s keep this forum civil. And since you seem more interested in continuing to complain even when offered several possible solutions to your complaint, I’m closing this.