Zombie massacre

So, what’s the point of killing zombie threads? It’s not like all threads that haven’t been posted to in X amount of time get automatically locked. Just the ones that see renewed interest. This seems counter intuitive - save the threads that no one cares about, but kill the ones that become popular again. What’s the dope?

Depends on the forum, actually. In GQ and the Comments forums, reviving old threads is OK, providing new information is being provided. That usually goes for Cafe Society as well.

Some of the other forums are more conversational rather than informational. In MPSIMS, IMHO, Great Debates, and especially the Pit, reviving very old threads often represents trying to engage in conversation posters who have long left the boards, or reviving issues that are long out of date.

Do you have some particular thread in mind? It would help if you could illustrate the situation you are talking about.

I got curious because of a recent GD thread that became reactive after a year or so, had multiple new conversations, and then got shut down as zombified.

But just in general it seems threads don’t get declared zombies unless they are actually reactivated which makes me wonder why all dead threads don’t get zombified when they go inactive.

True. We don’t auto-lock threads, and have no reason to do so really. Executing a script to auto-lock a thread after X amount of time would be an unnecessary use of server resources, and in some cases there are valid and good reasons to bump a zombie thread.

Personally, I’ve enjoyed reading some zombie threads that were bumped up from way back in the past.

In general, these previous responses cover the official stand on the issue:

If a poster is no longer around for various reasons what is the harm? The bumper may bring up an actual position that holds water, and current posters could also contribute. What exactly are you guys trying to prevent by the immediate lock downs?
Edit: Disregard, posted before I finished reading :stuck_out_tongue:

It depends on the thread. Why re-open old wounds, why revisit issues that have long been resolved but that were very hurtful at the time? We just feel that such activities are not fun, or useful, or reasonable… in fact, they smack of bad manners and hateful, hurtful motivation. So, we’d rather say don’t do it.

On the other hand, an old thread about “What ever happened to such-and-such a movie star?” could certainly be updated if someone discovers she has died two years after the thread, for instance.

So, basically, it depends. First, depends on the forum; and second, depends on the topic and what the resurrecting posts are about.

I was once using an old thread as a ‘sandbox’ to discover some undescribed features of the forum and had that thread locked as a zombie. This is a bit of a nit for sure but I do think we a nice feature to have a place just for learning how the forum behaves.

You can use ATMB for that purpose. It’s done all the time. Notice the threads called “Test Poll”? They’re (surprise!) testing the poll function.

Though, really, none of the features should be left undescribed. The official page lists some that we don’t use, and leaves out some we do. Surely that could be fixed.

I think I understand now thanks…