# Zombie massacre **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [December 13, 2009, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombie-massacre/521074 "2009-12-13T05:33:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 4
**Author:** ![xash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/c6cbf5/32.png) [@xash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xash)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2009, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombie-massacre/521074/4 "2009-12-13T07:05:07Z")
> [@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: > [@FAQ - Guidelines and Etiquette on the SDMB](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faq-guidelines-and-etiquette-on-the-sdmb/369402/4): > > **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.) > [@Why do you have this tiresome complaint about "zombie threads"](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-have-this-tiresome-complaint-about-zombie-threads/512879/16): > > 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. > [@how do we feel about bumping zombie polls?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-feel-about-bumping-zombie-polls/518623/2): > > Quick explanation for new posters: see [Guidelines](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697100#post7697100), 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.) --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombie-massacre/521074)._