Zombie massacre

[jackdavinci]

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?

[Colibri]

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represents trying to engage in conversation posters who have long left the boards, or reviving issues that are long out of date.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.

[jackdavinci]

@Colibri

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.

[xash]

@jackdavinci

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:

@C_K_Dexter_Haven

What if I want to continue / add to the discussion on a topic that was mentioned in an old thread?

Generally, we prefer you start a new thread with a link to the old thread. Often, an old thread includes statements from posters who are no longer members, and so cannot reply. It’s therefore “unfair” to re-open old discussions; such practice is usually called a “zombie thread.” (A general guideline for “old” would be a thread older than three months.) However, the rules on reviving old threads are different for the different forums. In General Questions, Comments on Cecil’s Columns, Comments on Staff Reports, and Cafe Society, it is acceptable to revive an old thread if you have some substantive comment to add. (Note that “thank you for answering my question” is just plain good manners, and acceptable. However, reviving an old thread just to say “I agree” is considered bad form.)

@C_K_Dexter_Haven

Expanding on what Colibri said:
In some forums, such as the Pit, we really do NOT want zombie threads. There are two main reasons:
(a) Some of the people who posted to the thread two years ago are no longer posting here, and can’t defend themselves or respond; and
(b) There are issues that have died and time has healed over the wounds, and we don’t see any point to some newbie unwittingly picking at old scabs.

This is less an issue in (say) Cafe Society, as long as the new posters understand that the posters from two years ago may not be here, may not be reading that thread, etc. and many not engage in discussion. There’s less “attack” mode in Cafe Society than in the Pit --someone not being able to defend their position about some TV show is different from someone not being able to defend their character against attack.

Thus, in Cafe Society, CCC, CSR, and GQ, it’s OK to add thoughts to an old thread. In the Pit it’s absolutely not OK. And in MPSIMS and IMHO, it’s generally not OK.

In general, resurrected threads are at least a minor nuisance in any case. To make the point by using an example: You see someone complaining that their landlord searched their apartment while they were at work and stole money (say.) You get indignant on that person’s behalf. You read through the thread, really building up empathy for the person, and then, two pages later, you discover the incident happened four years ago. Some newcomer just put “That sucks” at the bottom. So, you’ve got all worked up over some issue that’s long dead. That’s annoying. Worse, sometimes, you don’t notice that the thread was old, and you try to interact with the prior posters, giving sage advice and well-thought out comments, and then finding out your efforts were completely irrelevant.

The topics where this is most annoying tends to be those of the Pit, IMHO, and MPSIMS. Topics in CoCC, Cafe Society, GQ… well, it tends not to matter so much if you see a thread about a movie that’s four years old, it’s still around on DVD. It doesn’t matter too much if you have comments on Cecil columns, or have further information about some GQ question about Christopher Columbus.

That’s why, in some forums we care and in other forums we don’t.

@C_K_Dexter_Haven

Quick explanation for new posters: see Guidelines, Post #4. In some forums, such as General Questions, Cafe Society, Comments on Cecil’s Column/Staff Reports, we really don’t care about reviving old threads. In other forums, such as the Pit, Great Debates, MPSIMS, IMHO, we dislike the practice because new posters respond to something posted years ago, and the original posters may no longer be around; and often the issues are long dead, and don’t need to be brought up again (like picking at a scab.)

[ajb867]

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

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

@ajb867

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?

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.

[janeslogin]

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.

[BigT]

@janeslogin

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.

[jackdavinci]

I think I understand now thanks…