what's the protocol on bumping a 2-yr-old thread, if it's not necessarily "time-sensitive"?

By “time-sensitive” I mean that - although I’m not the savviest forum-poster in the world - I feel there’s a difference between bumping a 2-yr-old thread consisting of general bullshittin’ and conversatin’, and bumping a 2-yr-old thread discussing whether Brett Favre should come back and play this year.

Just stumbled into the Have you ever quit a job without having another one lined up? thread (last post was 7/2010), and was considering sending that one through the spin-cycle one more time.

Obviously I’m debating giving notice at a job (in the finance/accounting field) without having another one currently lined up, and I wasn’t sure if it was better to:
a) bump that thread, so the people who already contributed don’t waste time re-telling their stories (and take my “agggh… zombie!” lumps for doing so :D)
b) start a whole new thread, where I’m sure I would be referred to the original one

Or maybe I start a new thread, post a link to the original one with a “thank you to those who answered this question two years ago - just curious if there are any other opinions out there, considering a 2012 economy vs a 2010 economy (whatever the hell that means)”?

Thanks for any input.

I’d prefer to see you do it that way. Should solve the problems of doing it the previous ways.

Just my opinion (and a weak one at that, as I don’t really care either way), but I agree and it seems that most others do it that way as well, both here and on other message boards.

EDIT—“b” works as well, and if someone doesn’t like it, tough.

If it’s a “conversational” type thread, then many of the original posters may not be active any more. So your third option is going to be the best.

Well, yeah, it “works,” in that other posters will be likely to link to previous threads if you don’t. But if you are aware of a previous thread, then as a courtesy you might as well link to it so others don’t have to.

That’s kinda what I meant by “tough”.:wink:

How about posting a forward link from the old thread to the new thread you’ve started, as well as the back link from the new thread, and contacting a mod to ask that they close the old thread?

It does mean that the old thread gets bumped, albeit for a single response (your link), but that way if someone later searches for the topic in question and their search happens to return only the first thread because of their choice of keywords, they will have a useful link at the end to your new thread.

Or maybe I’m just a programmer who’s done too much work on doubly-linked lists :smiley:

Yeah, I’ll go with the “programmer” bit; it’s a bad idea.

Since the OP is “considering” the prospect of quitting without having a job, chances are that the discussion is going to center on him and how bad the job market is, and how it’s a bad idea, and what his options are.

It’s probably not going to result in the same sort of thread as the linked example.

If you do go with this option, start your post with something like “I know this thread is two years old, but…” or “I’m reviving this old thread to…”

That’s what I always do, as this place isn’t the only place that doesn’t close old threads and gets “upset” when they are necroed.