Even though some people may have mixed feelings towards bumping older threads that aren’t active anymore, I don’t see it being much of an issue IMO, but it depends on what the thread is about:
If someone asked for some advice and received several postings of advice, then there’s no need to continue the conversation (IMO)
However, if someone decides to “bump” an older thread out of boredom, mainly because they don’t have any discussion ideas at the moment, or don’t need any advice at the moment, then it’s not the worst thing to do (IMO)
I confess that I sometimes roll my eyes a little bit when I see the same topic posted twice in fairly quick succession (e.g. “great cover songs” or “what’s your favorite obscure movie?”) with basically the same responses. I much prefer bumping the older thread in that case, but it’s not clear what would qualify as “quick succession”.
I am certainly in favor of bumping dormant threads when there’s an update to an old news story or some other long-unfolding event. I’ve done it myself in fact. This allows readers to go back and see the context, if they missed it the first time around.
I don’t mind it at all. If it’s a topic that doesn’t interest me, I’ll ignore it. If it does, I’ll dive in and sometimes have an hour-plus of enjoying a really long thread. If it’s one I recognize (very unusual; I don’t even remember really old threads I posted in), I think “Well, let’s see what’s new here.”
No, I don’t mind either. I don’t understand the opprobrium associated with accidently bumping old threads. A couple of times I have been about to respond to the latest post in a thread only to realize that I had posted the same response years ago when the thread was a newby.
And even if it’s not that sort of thing, but it’s adding new information to an old discussion, it’s fine with me.
Bumping an old thread to try to engage in a discussion with somebody who’s no longer posting here, or to revive a discussion that’s already been done to death when the reviver has nothing new to add: those I’m not enthusiastic about. Though the first isn’t hard to do by accident; and sometimes either will let me know about a thread I missed in its earlier incarnation, but find interesting when I find out about it.
The only time I thought bumping an old thread was kind of dumb was when someone bumped a really old thread that had basically no information in it; bumping the old thread was pretty pointless in that isolated case.
I’m a bit conflicted about this issue. We often have zombie threads revived by new joins who found it on a Google search and contribute nothing of value, and the threads are subsequently closed by moderators. Which led me to thinking, why don’t we have the system just close old threads automatically? Turns out, that doesn’t work either.
On other message boards, I’ve sometimes wanted to update a thread with important new information, and have been met with the message “this thread is too old to post in”. What, does this mean the thread has been relocated to a nursing home and is too mentally feeble to accept posts any more? The thread has developed Alzheimer’s?
I think the presumption of keeping threads open indefinitely in the SDMB is, on balance, the right way to go. It assumes responsible posters who’ll update a thread only for good reason, and when someone does so for no good reason, a mod will close the thread.
I think (the ability of) bumping old threads is one of the best features in an online forum. The pros heavily outweigh the cons. Re-visiting a thread you read with interest a year or more back is like meeting an old acquaintance you wanted to bump into to catch up.
Also, many things in this world, such as international hostilities, trials, climate change, the Bold and the Beautiful etc. do take years to play out. So should the discussions about them, however intermittent.
I just bumped a 3-year-old thread as I watched a movie yesterday and had some thoughts about it. Before starting a new thread, I did a search and found a related thread.
Discourse warned me, and I went ahead anyway. Maybe no one reads it, maybe the thread continues, who knows.
Yeah - I’m periodically bemused when I see a zombie resurrected and I wonder, “How did anyone even FIND that thread? And to add nothing more than THAT?!” Coupled with an occasional momentary confusion when I see the active thread and do not realize it is a zombie - possibly one I previously contributed to.
But it is so far from a big deal that it doesn’t bother me at all. Just another of the many threads I open and then close because they don’t interest me or I have nothing to add.
Every great once in a while I’ll think about starting a thread to ask a question or make an observation, and I am glad when I search to see it has already been discussed previously. In such instances, I generally just decide not to start a thread. But I guess I COULD (if I wished) resurrect the zombie just to observe that that thought had occurred to me. But you all certainly don’t want to hear EVERY stupid thought that crosses my mind! (Yes, many are even dumber than the ones I express here!)
Anybody who posts was presumably interested enough to do it, and it doesn’t bother me – even if their post is as minor as answering “bump” to an old thread. The internet is almost entirely stuff I (or any other given person) am not going to read. Threads that are offensive, belittling, dishonest, or otherwise harmful, those I have thoughts/opinions about.
And then once in a while, if rarely: “How did anyone even FIND that thread? And they’re providing the solution, finally, to a long-unresolved puzzle! That’s great!”
Yeah. Leave them open unless there’s a specific reason to close them. Somebody bumps an ancient sexist thread to add another sexist comment? Close that one. Somebody bumps an ancient thread about a continuing current issue because they need to talk about it, and there’s no current thread? Leave it open. (If there is a current thread, direct them there.) Somebody bumps an ancient thread to add genuine new information? That’s why to leave them open.
If there are updates then I am all for it. If we have a thread on Tazzy Tigers extinction then why not update it 13 years later with new evidence that they may still be in the wild. What I disagree with is reviving an old thread to contribute something like, “I agree. Numbers are important.”
I think there’s a difference between “Well, I wouldn’t have done that” and “The board has been harmed!” I still don’t understand the annoyance. I have read many a zombie that I had missed when it was new, and it was still entertaining to dive in. If it’s not entertaining, I’ll bail, just as I do with current threads.
I couldn’t have said it better. Being a relative newcomer on this site, I’ve immensely enjoyed many a resurrected thread that I would have never known existed.
I certainly don’t remember all the threads I’ve posted in but I was amused just a few minutes ago that Discord does!
Coldfire’s remembrance thread was bumped, and it was showing with the blue dot indicating the number of posts I’ve missed. Opening the thread dropped me right back to my own post 24 years ago, and from there I caught up. I thought this was a pretty cool feature.
I’m fine with most zombie threads, especially ones where conversation continues or the subject continues to be pertinent.
I am a '99er, so I do find it disorienting to see posts from people that I know are no longer on the board for one reason or another. No big deal, I guess. But let the currrent policy stand.
I have bumped a couple of old threads myself, but I did have relevant info.
A comment from an earlier thread on a related subject (from the late Colibri):
