Why such hatred of "zombie threads"?

[Musicat]

Besides what Dex said, another reaction is, “I know something you don’t, and I’m smart and hip enough to tell you about it.”

[John_Mace]

@vontsira

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…

You really think you look like less of a fool when you resurrect a zombie thread rather than start a new one, even if no one responds? Not in my book.

[gnoitall]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

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.

Not an admin, not a mod, in no way connected to SDMB or its associated corporate and technical infrastructure, but:

There’s vbulletin and there’s vbulletin. Was this other forum running the exact same version? Was this capability a plugin? I haven’t seen much eagerness on the part of the web admin team to add more plugins. Likewise, if this was some kind of custom scripting.

The standing consensus seems to be that zombie threads is not a technical problem and they’re not inclined to apply a technical fix, even if there are good technical fixes out there. I would speculate that unless its’ a built-in option (just one check-box away), it probably won’t happen.

Again, just my observation from past discussions of the issue. I in no way represent the will or voice of SDMB. If I’m wrong, I acknowledge it in advance.

[Duckster]

Halloween comes but once a year. Zombie retorts allow us a bit of year around enjoyment. Well, that’s my approach, notwithstanding the up-thread comments (especially the time spent composing a well-research response, etc.).

I suspect the snark attached to zombie threads has a bit of newbie initiation attached to it, too. I mean, have you see the price of goats these days? What is the going rate on fresh squid? And now that Hal is a mod, best some humor remain on the lam …

[Boyo_Jim]

@Colibri

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

I’ve never noticed any thread on the boards that really had a point.

[cochrane]

@Duckster

And now that Hal is a mod, best some humor remain on the lam …

• Hums “Embraceable Ewe”.

[Ostrya]

I am just posting to let the mods know if they want to move this thread to another forum that it’s okay with me.

[OneCentStamp]

marks thread, sets calendar reminder to bump it in three years

[Voyager]

@aldiboronti

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.

Even worse is when you craft a stunning reply, read down - and find you posted exactly the same stunning reply 8 years ago.
It’s happened.
The one place that reviving a thread makes sense when it is about something then in the future but now in the present - like the current one on the Supreme Court EPA decision.

[johnpost]

@Voyager

Even worse is when you craft a stunning reply, read down - and find you posted exactly the same stunning reply 8 years ago.
It’s happened.
The one place that reviving a thread makes sense when it is about something then in the future but now in the present - like the current one on the Supreme Court EPA decision.

that not worse. that shows that you are stable and consistent.

[TokyoBayer]

Please tell me that I’m not the only one who checked the date of the OP.

[stui_magpie]

Just a suggestion but maybe if someone wants to revive discussion on a topic that’s been discussed before, rather than reviving the zombie thread, the protocol should be start a new thread and provide a link to the old one in the OP.

[tapu]

Tell me again, why does anyone care if a zombie thread comes up?

[OneCentStamp]

@tapu

Tell me again, why does anyone care if a zombie thread comes up?

Because too often it’s bumped so that someone can argue with a post from years ago, whose author might have left or been banned (and are therefore unable to respond), or changed their mind. Continuing an eight year old conversation which a third of the original participants are not privy to, and which another third of the participants barely remember or care about, isn’t very productive.

It used to be absolutely banned; now it’s allowed, just with the caveat that it’s only productive to do so if there’s new, relevant information to share.

[John_DiFool]

I wonder how often someone Googles a thread here, registers, is about to post, and only then notices the old date, and then closes the message window they are typing in, ne’er to return…

[OneCentStamp]

@John_DiFool

I wonder how often someone Googles a thread here, registers, is about to post, and only then notices the old date, and then closes the message window they are typing in, ne’er to return…

I would guess “not that often,” just because:

• The post dates are not very obvious unless you’re looking for them, to the point that veteran members sometimes inadvertently bump old threads; and
• Even if a new poster/lurker noticed, it might not deter them, since most other message boards aren’t as weirdly uptight about zombie threads as we are.

Hell, on another of the three message boards I post to actively, there is a prevailing culture of bumping old threads so that you can laugh at your own, or others’, horrible predictions from a few years ago. (It’s a board dedicated to a niche sport, so prediction and betting is a big thing.)

[kayaker]

@OneCentStamp

(It’s a board dedicated to a niche sport, so prediction and betting is a big thing.)

One of these??

[tapu]

@OneCentStamp

Because too often it’s bumped so that someone can argue with a post from years ago, whose author might have left or been banned (and are therefore unable to respond), or changed their mind. Continuing an eight year old conversation which a third of the original participants are not privy to, and which another third of the participants barely remember or care about, isn’t very productive.

It used to be absolutely banned; now it’s allowed, just with the caveat that it’s only productive to do so if there’s new, relevant information to share.

Good explanation. I’m surprised that such a thing could effect such dire consequences…

[Manduck]

Zombies used to be discourages because they were thought to put too much of a burden on the server. I don’t think that’s the case any more, but anti-zombieism became part of the board culture because of that.

[OneCentStamp]

@kayaker

One of these??

Haha, maybe not that niche.