For example, this morning a zombie was reanimated in GQ after nearly ten years in the crypt. Beat that?
I remember at least one from 1999.
It wouldn’t speak very well for the early SDMB if this record wasn’t fairly close to the age of the board.
This incarnation of the board has been around since early 1999, so that’s going to be about the record. This is the oldest one I’ve closed that I can find. There might be a few that were 11 years old.
But don’t forget The Winter of Our Missed Content where much of the Board’s pre-2002 content was wiped out.
No, it was only a few months of content that was lost. Everything posted earlier than sometime in late 2001 had been backed up.
Because of storage issues, for a while much of the earlier content was archived and not accessible (but not wiped out). That has now been restored. As Hypnogogic Jerk says, only a few months were lost during the Winter of Missed Content.
Please, let’s not use this thread as an excuse to find some antique thread and revive it, just to say “Here!” … 
Let’s save this one and resurrect it in 2025.
Just had one in GQ from June of 1999, only a few months after this version of the board started. It’s so old none of the original usernames are still linked to the posts.
That’s impressive, Colibri. The only way to tell who wrote what is by the .sig files.
I hope that record is never broken.
Actually, the apparent presence of sig lines is kind of bizarre. My understanding is that the software takes the sigs from the profile with each post. Here it seems that even though the username has been lost, a hard copy of the sig has been incorporated in the post.
Different software. UBB.
If reviving zombie threads is frowned upon, why not just lock any threads older than (some date)?
There are several factors going. As Sam notes, the first “domain” SDMB, as opposed to forum(s) on the AOL service, ran under UBB. My impression is that we switched to vBulletin software several months (as opposed to years) after the board started, and that most of the ‘nameless’ threads date from that conversion. (It would certainly be possible from internal evidence to tag posts with their users – the recent zombie that Coilbri closed had posts identifiable as having been made by cmkeller, Opal Cat, Welfy, and SqrlCub, among others.)
A secondary point is that one early effort was to archive the best of the old threads, in the estimation of the staff at the time, and that as an unforeseen consequence of the conversion those threads were irretrievably lost. Perhaps TubaDiva, who was involved and publicly lamented what happened, could amplify this with an explanation of what happened beyond that bald statement.
The “Winter of our Missed Content” was a database crash, I believe due to hacking, followed by the discovery that the backups were in some way defective, meaning that the restored posts database lost about three months of content between the last good backup and the time the boards were restored to service. (Note that TD sponsored, out of her own pocket, a temporary home for the SDMB community while that reconstruction was going on, which was unfortunately later wiped.) We did not at that time lose any “old” threads, AFAIK, just the ones created during the three-month period between last good backup and restoration of service.
IIRC we lost some older content when we switched board systems – not all the threads made it through the conversion process. The lost threads could not be retrieved.
Over the years we’ve also had server upgrades and various hardware and software changes. I vaguely recall at least one incident where we lost a chunk of very old content in the wake of an upgrade. Corrupted file, I think.
We have most of the content accumulated over time which is amazing, considering all we’ve been through. And they said it wouldn’t last!
We’ve had several recent discussions of this. This is my own personal opinion, but in some forums like GQ and Comments, sometimes interesting new information is added to even very old threads. I don’t see a good reason to have a blanket prohibition against revival of old threads at least in these forums.
We have recently relaxed our approach to closing zombie threads. I close zombies in GQ mainly if they have either 1) been revived by a spammer, which is the most common case; 2) been revived not to add factual information, but merely to add an opinion (as was the case in this one) or other non-factual comments; or 3) been revived by someone trying to debate or engage in discussion someone who no longer posts here, or a fight was going on in the original thread.