I understand the reason for this rule in Great debates and general questions (which has the new information exception), but I don’t see the harm in allowing people to resurect old threads in these forums.
So why?
p.s This rule really doesn’t bother me, I’m just curious.
In MPSIMS, the definition of “zombie” can be pretty loose – older than six months is the baseline, and I don’t necessarily close threads older than that. Depends what it is – if it’s something that was revived by a spammer, I may lock it after I deal with the spammer; if it was a conversation amongst a bunch of people who are mostly no longer around, I’ll probably lock it. Also, if it’s a long thread of the “what’s your favorite” or something, where a lot of people are not going to go back and read the entire thing, I’ll close that – makes more sense just to start a new thread at that point. And when it’s truly ancient (five, ten years), it’s strictly “RIP.”
Or … you get the idea. “Why do we [always]” is definitely a false premise, and there are a variety of reasons (and degrees of zombiehood) that will lead me to do deicde to lock it or to decide to leave it open.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
Add Cafe Society to the list. Plus, IIRC, (and I may be wrong here) I thought it was 6 months for GD/GQ/The Pit and a couple 2-3 years for MPSIMS, CS, IMHO – wasn’t that the rule at some point?
I understand there’s a legit difference in philosophy, but I’d still argue that “zombie” threads are useful and promote a continuity of discussion that linking and starting a new one doesn’t. The worst that can happen as a result of a zombie thread staying open after being bumped is that some Noob argues with a banned user or something. They’ll get over it. The upside is that (IMO) it promotes longer, better discussions.
I was thinking about bumping one of the old “LOST” threads and saying “Hey, it’s over, look at our opinions back then: boy things have changed for me! How about you?”–that way, olde timers in that thread doing vanity searches would see it towards the top of their list and might be tempted to join in in a way that a new thread/link combo wouldn’t but it seemed like the thread would have been shut down, so I didn’t bother.
Consider this my semi-weekly argument to keep all threads open short of total disaster or real-world issues. 
Yup, I would’ve shut that one, you are correct. (And, BTW, the “people would find it on vanity searches” argument won’t fly: the fact that they’d once posted in a thread wouldn’t bring their name up in a vanity search, so you’d have to call them out by name, which you could do in a new thread just as easily.)
Sounds like an interesting thread, though – you might want to start such a thread and link to one or more of the old ones.
As for your overall point: Yes, in Cafe Society we’re reasonably happy to leave threads open, though the exceptions there – really ancient, bumped by a spammer, involving people who are no longer around, etc. – are pretty much the same as the ones I stated for MPSIMS.
twickster, Cafe Society moderator
It’s a misconception that there is any blanket “zombie rule” in GQ. Threads may be revived, no matter how old, as long as new information is being added. I lock zombies in GQ mainly if they are very old and 1) some kind of fight was going on in the original thread which it would be unproductive to start anew (better in this case to start a new thread); 2) a newbie poster wants to begin a dispute with a poster or posters who are no longer around; or 3) it has been raised by a spammer, whose post has been removed (which could lead posters to inadvertently post to the thread thinking it is a new one).
This is incorrect. If I post a new post to an old thread, it shows up at the top of a vanity search.
I just bumped a completely innocuous thread from 2004 you appeared in. Put your name in the search box and you’ll see that it’s the first one where you appear.
PS–I’m jealous: I’ve never had Moroccan food and eating with belly dancers sounds fun. 
I still disagree with this philosophy. Leave 'em all open. (and yeah, I know, I’m in the minority here. That’s 'cause you’re all wrong. 
)
Nope, you’re wrong – I just did a search for “twick*” (which is my standard vanity search) and that thread didn’t appear.
You were, however, correct that it was a fun evening, one it was nice to be reminded of.
Incorrect. It’s coming up when I search for it. Put twickster in the standard search box and it’s currently the third thread from the top. I just did it. ETA: I just did it with “twick*” and it worked fine too. Sorry–either you’re doing an incorrect vanity search or there’s something hosed with your settings.
Screenshot:
Can someone else confirm? Or do we have an authentic VB mystery here?
Also, you just proved my point. It was a fun evening and nice to be reminded about? So why close it? 
Ah, you and I do searches differently – I do advanced search, precisely because I don’t want to see threads I participated in six months ago; I just want to see any places my name has been invoked in the last week. (And, yes, as a mod I run a vanity search a couple of times a week to see if my name is being taken in vain/my participation is being sought.)
You’re so vain…you probably think this thread is about you…
But it even showed up doing an advanced search…I tried it like 4 ways after bumping that thread and it showed up in all of them.
…
…Wait–are you limiting the search parameters? I’ve got mine set to “any date” "
Maybe that’s the difference? But even then, that bumped thread should have registered as your name was invoked in it in the last 2 weeks (or whatever)
This is really weird. What search settings are you using?
Key word: twick*
Search entire posts
At least 0 replies
A week ago and sooner
Threads or posts: posts
Forums: any
Since I do this once a week, I don’t need to see shit that was said about me any longer ago than that.
Ah-HA!!!
I tried like 4 different ways and couldn’t duplicate your results, until I got to the “And sooner” setting. That’s the ticket.
So…if I was an anal-retentive weirdo (and I may be… 
) the next step would be to start an IMHO poll seeing how many people have that setting set for “and sooner” and how many have it set for “and earlier”…
…but it’s the 4th of July weekend, a beautiful day and the mystery that was bugging me is solved, so I’ll let some other anal-retentive weirdo make the poll and I’ll go mow the lawn.
PS: FREE THE ZOMBIE THREADS! LET UNDEAD THREADS LIV…ok, not “live”…um…REANIMATE FREELY!
I guess my way would win, since it’s obviously the right way – why duplicate searches you’ve already done? – but I’ll let someone more invested in the answer set up the poll. 
I agree, let the zombie threads roam free. If one actually causes problems, then and only then should it get a bullet in the brain.
Just in case you want to start a poll on this question, IMHO is your go-to place.
FWIW, at the big-ass community I used to moderate, we had the exact opposite rule. Whenever possible, people were required to post to *existing *threads instead of creating new ones, even if those threads were old. New, duplicate threads of existing topics would be locked with a link to the old thread and instructions to search before creating a thread next time. Ye olde YMMV in action, I guess.
Why would you be searching in such a way to search everything *but *the most recent posts? 
Okay I’ve read the entire thread and the best answer seems to be in post #2. However, this post still doesn’t answer the question in the OP which is “why lock zombie threads”. I see the conditions under which threads might be classified as zombies, that we don’t always lock them, if the thread was bumped by a spammer, etc. But I don’t see the answer to the question of why these threads must be locked.
So what if some of the original people in the old thread aren’t around any more? Starting a new thread isn’t going to change that.
I am guessing that there is a risk of bad things happening if people are allowed to reply to old threads. What are these bad things?
It can be a bit disconcerting to be reading through a thread, think of a comment that you wish to make, then read someone making the point for you, and then realize that the username is your own. At least it shows consistency.