I clicked on a thread by **Bibliophage ** a couple of minutes ago in CS that looked interesting, ony to find out that it was from 2003. Knowing how things work here, it’ll probably get closed soon.
But why?
Hopefully the SDMB has got a lot of new paying members since '03. If they search and find an old thread and want to add something, what’s the harm? I can see where an old pitting of Lib, might be a *faux pas * (reviving the thread to add a “What-A-Putz” remark at the end), but if someone was to revive a thread about the first episode of Lost, it might be interesting to see what people thought back then, since hindsight is 20/20.
What I’m saying is: I don’t think there should be a general ban on zombie threads.
I think the ban is sensible. I’ve had the experience myself of getting into a thread, replying to a point that someone has made, only to notice that all the posts are a couple of years old, other than the post which revived the thread. It’s frustrating, to say the least.
The point is that you can’t have an intelligent discussion with ghosts (or zombies).
I gather the official policy is that given the membership here is in a state of flux, it’s a little unfair to hold someone who may longer be here to account for a post they made a couple of years ago, when they’re not in a position to reply; even someone whose membership is still extant may have moved on from a stance they held a while back - I shouldn’t like to be called out for some posts I made when I was still new here. As I understand it, the policy cuts down on fluff zombie posts like “me too”, or provocative ones like “what a dick”: if it’s a thread you have something substantive to add to, you can always start a new thread and link to the old one.
Actually, CS has a more liberal policy than the other forums on resurrecting old threads - basically you can bump them if you truly have something substantial to add to the discussion (not a “me too!”, etc.).
It does make sense when you put it like that, but I wish the administrators could come up with something to automatically close threads that haven’t had any new entries within, say, a month. More than once I’ve been looking for old threads, then started reading them, and then forget that they’re zombies and post to them. I really do try to follow the rules here, so it’s a bit unsettling to find that I have broken them out of a mere oversight.
I don’t buy the date confusion thing. You always should be looking at the date of the OP. The date stamp is there for a reason. It’s not just decorative. I mean if I run across a thread that’s been hashed out over a week or two, I treat that differently from a thread that was started an hour ago. And when it comes to threads about developing current events, a post written a week ago will usually have a totally different context than one written today. If you’re not looking at the date stamp then you should be.
I think the problem with Zombie threads is simply their size. If all threads about a certain topic were relegated to some uber thread started a year ago which are now 50 pages in length, newcomers would ignore them, or if they did try to join in they’d quickly be beaten back with - “if you bothered to pay attention, you’d see we covered that in March.”
:dubious: It’s very easy to get confused on the date of a thread, and the way it happens usually is two ways -
Someone links to the thread, and read the last few posts and you post.
Someone else has already been confused and posts, and so you add your thoughts at the end.
In both cases, there was no real reason for you to look at the OP. Or you could be in the first example, and really get into reading, and then post, forgetting how old the thread is.
It’s extremely easy to be confused. That’s why so many people do it.
OK, you should not be adding thoughts to a thread where you haven’t at LEAST read the OP.
But that’s not my point, my point is that date confusion can matter if we’re talking about week-old posts too. But in either case it’s not such a terrible problem.
The real problem is you want to encourage people to start new threads rather than adding to ancient behemoth threads that gradually accumulate over the years and therefore gradually exclude more and more posters.
My policy, in General Questions, is that you can resurrect a Zombie thread if you have some new information to add that furthers the cause. I don’t want a thread brought back for a cute comment or for any fluffy reason. Give me some new info, and you’re welcome to bring it up.
I expected this would be a thread about Corman or what grade of grey makeup should be used for a zombie. Maybe we’d get some information about how many hotel heiresses a zombie would have to kill for a pound of brain; but noooooooooooooooooooooooooo! :rolleyes:
It’s not so much a Rule as a common courtesy, and it’s different in different forums. There are two reasons for the guideline: [ul][li]Shelf-life: Most topics in MPSIMS are just dead after a while. “My child’s kindergarden teacher was rude to me at parents’ night, what should I do?” becomes pretty useless two years later. On the other hand, a two-year old movie being discussed in Cafe Society is still viewable and discussable. [/li][li]Fairness: Many of the people who responded to the thread two years ago are no longer around, so can’t respond; that’s sort of “unfair”-- e.g., a flaming in the BBQ Pit. On the other hand, often for a General Question, it’s not a matter of debate, and doesn’t matter whether the prior posters see additional (or new) information. [/ul][/li]
Thus, we have different reactions to resurrected (“zombie”) threads in different forums.
So, back to the OP, there isn’t a general ban on zombie threads. It depends on the forum, and it may depend on the topic. It’s a courtesy, not a hard-and-fast rule.
I think it’s very important to note that if you don’t like “zombie” threads, rather than ask for the SDMB to muck with the board software or to request that they be locked down, you just look in the upper left hand corner of the thread-starter’s post and right above their name you’ll find the date and time of the post!!! :eek:
I know it’s a hidden feature, fraught with technical complications, but with practice, it can become possible.