I think I’ve asked this before, but it was likely in the middle of another thread.
When a spammer posts a link (or even real information, but still with a link to their own website/store etc) to an old thread, why is it that the entire thread is shut down instead of just deleting the post (and even the post where someone mentioned that they reported the spam post and letting the whole thread fall back to where it was?
Today, a spammer posted to, by my count, 5 threads, all 5 (thought there were 7 at first) of them are now locked. Yes, yes, I know, if someone wants to post about them, they can just start a new thread, but that brings me back to the point I’ve always made, either allow us to post to old threads or tell us we can’t. This sometimes you can and sometimes you can’t stuff is getting old.
But, in the case of a spammer raising an old thread, I really don’t get it, delete the new posts, the thread falls back to where it was and all is well. Why the need to lock it?
For reference:
Most of these are in GQ or IMHO, many are made up of still active users and contain still relevant information.
While I don’t agree with the ‘you bumped a thread with something that didn’t add anything useful, therefore we’re locking it’ rational, that’s not what this is about This is about why we lock threads when the new post is deleted because it’s spam.
I lock them because 1) it’s general policy to lock old threads that are bumped for no reason; 2) threads that have been bumped by spammers before often attract spammers again because of their subject matter. There are threads on certain subjects that have been bumped seven or eight times by spammers over periods of a decade. Better just to not give them the opportunity to find them and bump the thread again.
Most of the threads were in GQ. The IMHO ones came up because I looked at all the spammer’s posts.
The information is still there. If you do a search, you can find them easily. If your question is not answered in the closed threads, you are welcome to open a new one.
In any case, the number of different threads on bedbugs shows that most posters don’t bother to do a search before posting a question. Most people wouldn’t need to open a new thread if they did.
I’ll accept that answer (though I do like a good argument). I never considered that certain threads attract spammers.
One of my issues with locking old threads just because of a spammer (not knowing what you just said) is that I think it discourages new posters. In fact, I think we do a lot to discourage new posters, but in this case, if someone finds a old thread and posts to it, within one or two posts, someone will make fun of them for it, then often times we’ll lock the thread.
In these cases, if they find a thread they like, but it’s closed (and they don’t know why), they may be that much less likely to create a new account since it’s that much more work to start a whole new thread rather than just tack on to an old one.
Like I said, I’ll run with that answer, this is sort of an off shoot of my beef with the ‘yeah, you guys can totally post to old threads [but not]’ but that’s neither here nor there.
Thanks for the level headed answer (even if I only half like it )
I disagree with this policy, or at least find it to be inconsistent with other policies. Suppose we have a thread on underwater basketweaving that goes unanswered. Years then pass. Then, one of two situations occurs: In the first situation, I come across some new information on the topic of underwater basketweaving, and I remember the old thread to which it was relevant. In this situation, it is considered right and proper that I bump the old thread with the new, relevant information. In situation two, though, some clueless newbie, who found the thread via Google-knows-what search, bumps it to say “heh I lik undrwaetr bsaketweavin 2”. The thread is then locked, and some time after that, I find my new information. In this situation, even though I have the exact same new information to add, and it’s exactly as relevant as it was before, I now cannot add that new information to the thread. Why is it that the same action that was encouraged before is now prohibited, due to the actions of another?
What’s more likely - there’s a single idiotic post, then nothing more until you post your factual and relevant response days/months/years later? Or that one idiotic post is followed with several zombie jokes, more idiotic posts, and various non sequiturs and irrelevant posts?
I’d prefer to have your new information go in its own thread where it isn’t lost among the junk.
Right. I would say the ratio of pointless resurrections to posts that actually add information is at least 100 to 1, if not more. And seriously, if you actually have new information, it’s a trivial amount of effort to open a new thread. If it’s significant enough, you could also report the thread or PM a mod to ask it to be re-opened.
And I do usually leave threads open even if the initial post was spam or stupid if subsequent posters have added significant information. It’s something of a judgment call.
Oh, and another pet peeve: If all you’re going to do is post a zombie joke, don’t bother. This may get you some “in-group” points, but it may just mystify a newbie. It’s fine if you want to post a zombie remark, as long as you then explain that it’s an old thread.
)