Dead Threads and Necro Posting ?

[nun2sharp]

The majority of necroposting you see is spammers or hoglahoo.

I with Jimmy, this is all to true and funny!

[JohnnyCakeDC]

The majority of necroposting you see is spammers or hoglahoo. Then once the thread is bumped unsuspecting members start posting.

Locking old threads could be construed to be against the spirit of SRP.

I very much enjoy reading old threads, and would hate to see access of any these cut off. The dates of the posts are plainly marked, and it's the responsibility of the poster to determine wether the thread is dead and will then get a response to his questions. As Jimmy just said, there's gold in them hills, and some laughs too. Remember Robin and the Gold Dollar bit?
I lurk ten times the amount I post. Please leave them alone.

[Fbones24]

Necroposting is so............taboo!

Seriously, I don't see a problem with revival of "dead threads." It gives many of us the opportunity to see something that might have otherwise been missed. ...and just because a conversation is old or antiquated, does not mean it is not still relevant. If that were the case, none of us would be using straights.

[Catrentshaving]

I agree with this. Also, if there's someone who wants to talk about the topic, then it's not really a dead topic anymore. If you close down old threads or frown upon people posting in them, the person would need to start a new thread to have their questions answered. Why have a bunch of threads on the same topic?

Because..then we could complain about them asking the same questions over and over I say if you have something to add to a thread then why not..it shouldn't matter how old it is.

[NoseWarmer]

As in a text book, it's history... We talk about history all the time... So, should we not talk about history?

A bump on an old topic is good, providing that there is new information or someone seeking new information.

[AFDavis11]

I don't really believe in the concept of a "dead thread". They don't have any levidity or rigor so they can't actually be "dead". Threads don't become pale or go into a coffin.

Awful situation happened to me just recently. It was a motorcycle forum. A thread had been resurrected from the past and I noted as I went through the responses that many of the people replying were in fact now DEAD. It was a little spooky but left me with a lot to think about.

The only problem with "dead threads" is that the original people can't reply or correct some bad ideas they used to have.

[Nightblade]

Old news is good news and so is new news.I've checked out old threads and found some nice tidbits of info.Although I wish there was a more eyes open way of scouring old threads if that makes sense?

[Slartibartfast]

If a thread has information in it worth bookmarking/subscribing, I hope the pertinent information is in the wiki with links back to the discussion.

[avatar1999]

Good thoughts here!

I for one don't think there's anything wrong with bring back a so-called dead thread.

Like was said above, there can be lots of great information in these threads, and for new ppl, or just people that haven't seen it before, maybe they can contribute something constructive or helpful to the thread.

Nothing wrong with referencing/linking old threads either.

I would say it's personal preference which road you take, but as stated above, I also agree that flaming/berating ppl for "resurrecting" a dead thread is just uncalled for, and could very well be that the person just wants something to complain about.

[Pete_S]

I don't think its ever really inappropriate or anything. At the worst its kind of pointless. Such as when some guy with 10 posts from 2007 has his question finally answered. After that someone usually doesnt miss a chance to say "that guy left like 3 years ago, you know" Then the thread is kind of funny, which is much better than pointless.