Why such hatred of "zombie threads"?

About This Message Board
1

Mods, please move this, if initially posted in inappropriate forum.

I think I’ve mentioned this previously on TSD, but couldn’t find the thread: tried a search for it, keyword “zombie”, but no luck – said keyword led to so many threads, that no pre-2014 date was reached back to.

As someone fairly new to TSD, I find myself wondering – why so much animus as there seems to be, against bringing threads back – if discovered – from past years? It seems to me to be a feature of this board, that threads are normally short-lived – their lives usually measured in days, and not many of those, till they have for the time being run their course, and they go into oblivion.

That being so – can stuff not legitimately be brought back for “another go-round” – or two, or three, or more, thereof? Might there not be new people along, with worthwhile thoughts to contribute – or “not-new” people, but perhaps with new thoughts? I can see that zombie-revival is not always worthwhile; but in the context of a “short-lived-threads” site, is it without exception, never worthwhile?

Was prompted to make this post, by a thread which I happened on today, and on which I could have had something to say – till I noticed (a thing which in the way of how things are displayed here, one often fails to notice) that it came from 2009, and had 125 posts from that year, and 3 (at least one of which, referring to zombie-revival) very recent. I am now a bit loath to post on that thread, for fear of being berated and lambasted by “don’t-dig-up-zombies-merchants”.

I can see that digging up age-old threads can, sometimes, be pointless in relation to what the diggers-up have to say; but there seems to be something of a “culture” here, to the effect that reviving threads is never worthwhile or acceptable. Is that not, perhaps, going too far and painting with too broad a brush?

Would be interested to hear folks’ opinions.

2

zombie threads aren’t hated. they are great fun.

it is an all depends.

some other boards/forums on the net are very topical. all talk about shoelaces go in the shoelaces thread in the apparel/lower body half/feet subforum. things are just chronological.

this board is very broad natured, some of everything. it also is very conversational. people start different unique conversations.

many people have something very useful to add to and old thread; this often where people are talking about some cultural or news item. if it applies to that conversation then it’s a good thing.

3

Reason #1: Original post is in 2003, asks a question. Two dozen replies come in within the next month and a half, then it sinks into obscurity. Then someone posts to the threat in 2014. People see the thread when they click the New Posts button and open it, read the original post and the first few replies and they click the Reply button and reply to one of them. They spend time composing a post replying to something written 11 years ago. It’s annoying to realize afterwards that the person you’re replying to is probably no longer interested in the question.

Reason #2: Same as Reason #1 but with these elaborations: the original poster is DEAD, or the author of reply #5 to which you decide to reply is BANNED, or the author of reply #7 with which you want to argue is someone who doesn’t come around here any more. It’s upsetting (to various degrees, to various people) to find themselves interacting with people who, as it turns out, aren’t really here any more, like ghosts or something.

That’s it in a nutshell, I think.

Some forums are friendlier to revivals of old threads than others. A thread discussing a specific classical music recording or analyzing the attitudes apparent in the media’s description of female Senators may benefit from new input and old comments are still relevant; a thread in which someone is pitting people who take 20 items to the 10 items or less supermarket checkout line, in which 3-4 board members got into back-and-forth heated arguments and called each other jackass and whatnot, is not a good one to revive. There’s no hard and fast rule here. People post “zombie” comments in part to alert other board regulars that this is indeed an old thread newly revived, not just as a way of complaining about the person who revived it.

4

Probably one of the main reasons is that often they’re not recognized as zombie threads straight away. Thus you could have crafted a stunning put-down in reply to a post, demolishing the poster’s argument, then suddenly realize that you’re replying to a ghost who may not have visited the board for 5 or 6 years. It can be intensely annoying, and yes, I speak from bitter experience.

Oh sure, I know, you should have checked the date, blah blah, but the fact is people often don’t and assume that the thread is current. As I said, it can be a royal pain in the arse.

5

Do you really think the mods need your permission to do so?

6

Because obvious zombie jokes are obvious.

I’ve been here for two years and have probably seen people say stuff like that a hundred times or more.

7

Me, too. So what?

8

In addition to what has already been posted: many times, older threads are resurrected by newbies with nothing to add other than some worthless anecdote, link to some CT site, or other nonsense.

Sure. The preferred option is to start a new thread and reference the old one. Is that a problem?

9

I don’t like them if the zombie thread is old and many of the posters are gone from the forums; those seem like true zombie threads.

10

Of course we don’t, but I’m sure the OP meant it as a courtesy, which is always appreciated.

11

We routinely allow zombie threads in GQ, as long as some new information is being added. Pointless resurrections, however, are generally closed.

12

I’ve got no problem with them. They’re often quite interesting to read, and I never would have seen them but for some clueless n00b from the google machine resurrecting them.

13

(I wrote): "That being so – can stuff not legitimately be brought back for ‘another go-round’ – or two, or three, or more, thereof? Might there not be new people along, with worthwhile thoughts to contribute – or ‘not-new’ people, perhaps with new thoughts… zombie-revival… is it without exception, never worthwhile?

If you’re me – yes, a bit of one. If someone is rather thin-skinned – one can feel something of a fool, to start a new thread referencing the old one – and have absolutely zero response to one’s new thread. Less humiliating to tag on to the old thread, and not be responded to… I know people say that one needs a thick skin on the Internet – but maybe there’s a happy medium between “cuddly pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies”, and the BBQ Pit or worse, with foul invective and death-and-torture-threats filling the air…

14

That is indeed how I meant it.

15

If you haven’t already done so, read the official pronouncement On resurrecting old threads.

Yes, most of the hatred, or at least annoyance, at zombie threads can (I think) be traced to this. Every so often somebody posts a thread here asking “Why can’t we… [do some thing to make it obvious that a thread is old]?” but so far, there hasn’t been a solution that the admins have been able/willing to implement.

16

I think all conspiracy topics (9/11, JFK, did FDR know about Pearl Harbor, etc.) should have one thread each, and those threads should be the only place the topic is discussed. That way we won’t have someone come in to revive the argument only to have 50 responses saying “We’ve already discussed this here, here and here!”

17

1st bolding - There have been plenty of long-time posters who have started threads with 0 replies. Sometimes you just don’t catch people’s interest - nothing personal should be construed.

2nd bolding - “foul invective” - sure. Just words. Good practice to separate your self from such. Death and torture threats will assuredly lead to mod warnings if not outright banning. Very much against the rules.

ETA - so says the user who has started exactly 1 thread.

18

You know, this happens with new threads all the time, though. In fact, more often than not, if a thread draws a lot of attention, the bulk of it will be posts repeating what others have already said, posts ignoring previous comments, or just posts containing “other nonsense” – gratuitous posting, in other words. It’s as much of an annoyance as newcomers digging up old discussions.

Really, all you have to do to avoid zombies is make a habit of checking dates, especially before you post. And the zombies themselves aren’t half as pathetic as the fatuous and self-congratulatory zombie “jokes” that they inevitably engender.

19

One of the boards I occasionally visit (a gun forum) runs VBulletin, and they have a feature that tells you after a certain threshold of time how many days it has been since the last post, and asks if you’re sure you want to post…

OK, I just tried it out, and here is what it says beneath the “Quick Reply” box:

It has a time-elapsed warning, a disclaimer, and a box that you have to check to post in the thread. Why can’t we implement that here? It would probably kill a ton of zombie threads for good.

20

I think AHunter3 nailed it. The annoyance is someone composing a response without REALIZING that the thread is n years old.

The two examples:
(1) If the thread is about the movie CITIZEN KANE, then it doesn’t really matter if it’s a zombie thread. New comments are still interesting, and a person who just drafted a thoughtful response should post it and be happy about adding to knowledge/insight.
(2) If the thread is about, “My exboyfriend’s mother invited me for dinner, should I accept?” and the thread is five years old, it’s really irrelevant, and the person who just drafted a thoughtful and sensitive response will be annoyed at having wasted his/her time.

Sure, there’s an argument that the date is visible for everyone to see, but most people don’t check dates, they just start reading. Hence, anger against having wasted time on a zombie thread.

We do have a sort of ex post facto fix: once a moderator sees a zombie thread, they can either edit some sort of notice into the first post, or change the title, or close the thread (as appropriate.) But that’s only after someone has already revived it.