Resurrecting REALLY old threads... Why??

[neatdesign]

I've noticed lately that there are a handful of people who are posting new responses to threads that are really old and resurrecting discussions that haven't been active for several months -- sometimes for a year or more. I saw a response the other day to a thread that hadn't been active in almost 4 years!

At first I thought, "Well, if the person has something constructive to say, does it really matter how old the thread is?" And then thought, "Yes, it does!" The new responses bump the threads up to the top of the list, and other posters think it's an active thread and then post to it also, giving the OP advice based on the original question asked, but the reality is that OP is probably long gone and/or their problem already resolved itself over time.

I truly appreciate an active forum where people participant and share what they know. This is one of the better forums out there. But for whatever reason, this "dead thread resurrection" practice really annoys me. It just seems like such a waste of everyone's time. I don't understand why people do it, and I wish there was a tactful way to ask people not to do that, but I guess there isn't.

Okay, rant over.

[Snodog]

Agreed!

[kork13]

Yeah, it happens all the time... Especially when a new member joins and goes through the (extensive) archives looking at all of the advice that has been contributed in the past. Generally when I see a resurrected thread (or more often, about 20 of them all at once), I just roll my eyes and think "NEW GUY"....

[bUU]

I see it completely differently. I see folks more often responding to new threads with verging-on-irate replies directing posters to search the forum for previous threads on the issue. Each person's concerns are worthy of consideration and discussion. If someone's twin posted the same question about the same circumstances, that's one thing, but barring that, every concern deserves a custom response if someone is inclined to offer one. Therefore, there must be an avenue to support that, and my preference is for someone to find a preexisting thread about the same question, learn all they can about the matter from the replies already posted in that thread, and then add their own reply at the end, asking for clarifications and elaborations that apply better to their own circumstances.

If someone replies to the OP of that thread then it is they who are going off-track, not the person asking for their own clarifications and consideration.

A lot of this comes down to how people read the forums. vBulletin is one of the most common forum software systems out there, yet there are folks who don't know how to use it well. It relies on people either manually marking the forums read after each session or allowing the software to do it automatically. With that in place, clicking on the title of a thread in a forum instead of on the first unread message icon means you are deliberately defeating the software's intention mean of keeping up to date with what is being discussed, i.e., deliberately deciding to go back to the beginning of the thread. That comes with the obligation to be aware of the subsequent comments before posting your own reply, including comments indicating that the OP no longer needs further replies, if applicable.

Later versions of forum software even have a feature prompting this behavior I support, directing posters of new threads to add their replies to a preexisting thread with a similar title. Of course, folks don't have any obligation to interact with the forums in any specific way. However, the point is that folks who choose to interact it in this specific way - adding their clarifying questions to an already-existing thread - are doing what in many ways is considered the correct thing.

[disneysteve]

I agree with OP. It is almost always brand new posters doing this. It baffles me because you really need to search to find these threads, especially ones that are years old. Those aren't just popping up on your screen when you log in or browse the forums. You need to go considerably out of your way to locate those threads. I don't see the point, and it is annoying.

Just the other day someone pulled up a thread that I started in 2006! Sorry, but I'm really no longer looking for input on a topic that I asked about 7 years ago.

[bjl584]

I don't see the point either. Anything years old will be buried pages deep. You really have to search for them. But, there really is no way to stop it.

[Like2Plan]

Just the other day someone pulled up a thread that I started in 2006! Sorry, but I'm really no longer looking for input on a topic that I asked about 7 years ago.

I agree with you, there quite often a time critical context to a thread. When I read that thread from 2006, the update said the person had purchased a new 2006 vehicle. I was thinking how could a 2006 car be a new vehicle? Then I scrolled back to the first post-- 2006and the update was in 2006! .

[Like2Plan]

I don't see the point either. Anything years old will be buried pages deep. You really have to search for them. But, there really is no way to stop it.

Couldn't old threads be archived?

I am wondering if some of these zombie threads being resurrected are the work of bots? I don't have any idea as to how this works, but it is really strange that there are so many of these old threads being brought back to life on the first post and only post.

Conventional Wisdom can change quite dramatically over time when it comes to financial issues. For one thing, tax law changes can change dramatically. Even simple things like funding limits on IRAs and so on change to an extent that pulling up an old thread might be really confusing.

Maybe what this board needs is a zombie thread slayer!

[skydivingchic]

One forum I belong to has a policy against resurrecting old threads that I really like. Any time a thread is resurrected in which the last reply was more than a few weeks old, a moderator locks it with a note about the policy. Thus no one else can mistakenly reply to it and it quickly works its way off the front pages, but is still searchable. If the topic is important to the person doing the resurrecting, they can start a new thread with their individualized situation or question. The time frame for what constitutes resurrecting could of course be changed to accommodate whatever people feel is appropriate, but overall I find this policy very helpful.

[bjl584]

Couldn't old threads be archived?

I am wondering if some of these zombie threads being resurrected are the work of bots? I don't have any idea as to how this works, but it is really strange that there are so many of these old threads being brought back to life on the first post and only post.

Conventional Wisdom can change quite dramatically over time when it comes to financial issues. For one thing, tax law changes can change dramatically. Even simple things like funding limits on IRAs and so on change to an extent that pulling up an old thread might be really confusing.

Maybe what this board needs is a zombie thread slayer!

That would be something for Nate to look into. It would be a good idea though.

[disneysteve]

One forum I belong to has a policy against resurrecting old threads that I really like. Any time a thread is resurrected in which the last reply was more than a few weeks old, a moderator locks it with a note about the policy. Thus no one else can mistakenly reply to it and it quickly works its way off the front pages, but is still searchable. If the topic is important to the person doing the resurrecting, they can start a new thread with their individualized situation or question. The time frame for what constitutes resurrecting could of course be changed to accommodate whatever people feel is appropriate, but overall I find this policy very helpful.

I like that but it would be much better if the process was automated. As a moderator, I certainly don't have the time to go around locking old threads manually each time.

[bjl584]

I like that but it would be much better if the process was automated. As a moderator, I certainly don't have the time to go around locking old threads manually each time.

I'm sure that it would be too difficult to have a thread auto lock itself once it reaches a certain age. Say, one year since the creation date.

[kork13]

I'm sure that it would be too difficult to have a thread auto lock itself once it reaches a certain age. Say, one year since the creation date.

Probably better would be (if possible) an expiry based on the most recent post. There are some threads floating around here that have been going for years, with thousands of posts, but still frequently (and meaningfully) contributed to.

[neatdesign]

If someone's twin posted the same question about the same circumstances, that's one thing, but barring that, every concern deserves a custom response if someone is inclined to offer one. Therefore, there must be an avenue to support that, and my preference is for someone to find a preexisting thread about the same question, learn all they can about the matter from the replies already posted in that thread, and then add their own reply at the end, asking for clarifications and elaborations that apply better to their own circumstances.

Yes, I agree that everyone's questions are worthy of discussion and consideration. (Well, minus trolls.) However, I disagree that the best approach is for someone to essentially hijack a long-dead thread in order to post new questions that might be somewhat related. (Let's not kid ourselves: No two people's situations are ever identical.)

I'd much prefer that person to start their OWN thread and start out with, "I'm new here and in need of advice. I've read through older threads and found some that sort of address my situation, but I have additional questions and/or my situation is slightly different -- can you help me?" That way we know from the get-go that they've at least tried to find the information they're seeking, and no one gets confused.

The other thing is that not all of these threads are being resurrected by people asking new questions. Some of them are just commenting on that thread's topic, or giving the OP advice. And those are the real time-wasters because, before you know it, other people start chiming in to offer the OP advice, not realizing that the thread is long dead. It's happened to me more than once.

Sorry if this makes me sound curmudgeonly, but at least I know I'm not alone in this!

[bjl584]

Yes, I agree that everyone's questions are worthy of discussion and consideration. (Well, minus trolls.) However, I disagree that the best approach is for someone to essentially hijack a long-dead thread in order to post new questions that might be somewhat related. (Let's not kid ourselves: No two people's situations are ever identical.)

I'd much prefer that person to start their OWN thread and start out with, "I'm new here and in need of advice. I've read through older threads and found some that sort of address my situation, but I have additional questions and/or my situation is slightly different -- can you help me?" That way we know from the get-go that they've at least tried to find the information they're seeking, and no one gets confused.

The other thing is that not all of these threads are being resurrected by people asking new questions. Some of them are just commenting on that thread's topic, or giving the OP advice. And those are the real time-wasters because, before you know it, other people start chiming in to offer the OP advice, not realizing that the thread is long dead. It's happened to me more than once.

Sorry if this makes me sound curmudgeonly, but at least I know I'm not alone in this!

I could manually delete their posts when someone replies to an old thread. But there are a few issues with that.

It would be subjective. How old is old enough to warrant me deleting a post? And, if the info is still relevant, then should the age of the thread matter?

It would be a lot of work and a lot of constant monitoring. I'm not online all the time. Either is Steve or Jeffery.