Reviving old threads

[Light Mage]

Just a question out of curiosity: why is it frowned upon to revive old threads?

Wouldn't it be easier to just auto-lock any threads that havn't been contributed to after a certain amount of time?

That way you wouldn't be able to comment on postings that were made ages ago as the topics are still "current" in the forum.

[Destai]

I dont undertsand why theyd want to lock a thread because its old anyway. I dont see the point of it and its never been explained to me. Well FoA attempted to explain it to me but I still didnt get it (Well maybe I did but I've forgotten)

[Meat Puppet]

If you care about yesterday, you care about history.

[TasteyPies]

There is nothing logicly wrong with reviving old threads. If noone realy cares, it will just die a second time anyway.

[Reine]

If you go about reviving all your own threads, thats when they usually frown on you. A lot of people dont like reviving old threads because they feel that everyone will shun them for it. They tend to wait till someone else does it, or they'll remake one exactly like it.

I can and will revive an old thread if it interests me, and only if the Site Staff put a rule up, will I stop.

So, feel free to revive an old thread if you want, just make sure there isnt a similar one up. The only threads that the Staff dont want continued, are the ones they lock.

[Agent Proto]

Ok, here's the what's up on necroposting. The staff frown upon necroposting when a thread is several months old, say at least 2-3 months old. Depending on the post made that revived the thread, they may or may not close the thread. The older the thread, the higher the chance they will close the thread, regardless if your post isn't spamming it.

[Destai]

Ok, here's the what's up on necroposting. The staff frown upon necroposting when a thread is several months old, say at least 2-3 months old. Depending on the post made that revived the thread, they may or may not close the thread. The older the thread, the higher the chance they will close the thread, regardless if your post isn't spamming it.

And I still dont know why they close the thread just because its old.

[Meat Puppet]

I wish that people would do that in real life.

[crono_logical]

If you go about reviving all your own threads, thats when they usually frown on you. A lot of people dont like reviving old threads because they feel that everyone will shun them for it. They tend to wait till someone else does it, or they'll remake one exactly like it.

I can and will revive an old thread if it interests me, and only if the Site Staff put a rule up, will I stop.

So, feel free to revive an old thread if you want, just make sure there isnt a similar one up. The only threads that the Staff dont want continued, are the ones they lock.

Where did all that crap come from?

There is nothing logicly wrong with reviving old threads. If noone realy cares, it will just die a second time anyway.

The problem is a revived thread bumps newer threads down the page, even if it will die again.

Old revived threads are closed so people can make a new thread if they really want to talk about the same topic again. Chances are most of the people in the old thread and original discussion have moved on anyway. This also means what's seen as an acceptable age of the thread varies from forum to forum - threads in the slower game forums can generally be revived from being older than threads say in GC, where the thread turnaround on the first page seems to change almost daily. Then there's also the topic to take into account too - if the thread's about someone needing help on a problem and it's completely solved, it's more likely to get closed if it's revived. Plus other factors. Basically use that thing above your shoulders.

Proto's put it most accurately, but that's expected, with him being former staff


And yes, we've banned people before who've persistantly revived lots of old threads

[Destai]

I had a thread with about a quiz in general chat. The quiz was about which religion you were suited for and it was a couple of months old but everyone who had posted in it was still around. Someone posted in it and then aload of ther people followed but it was still closed. And I still dont see the logic in closing a thread because its old.

[Meat Puppet]

Because closing threads is fun.

*closes*

EDIT: Not you, Proto.

[Light Mage]

Old revived threads are closed so people can make a new thread if they really want to talk about the same topic again.

But don't people get told off if they make a thread saying the same thing as a thread already on the boards?

[Shoeberto]

Old revived threads are closed so people can make a new thread if they really want to talk about the same topic again.

But don't people get told off if they make a thread saying the same thing as a thread already on the boards?

If it was a thread recent enough for someone to be able to easily find it on the first or second page, you'll probably get a link to it and a closed thread. It's doubtful you'll get told off, since it's a simple mistake and not really offensive to anyone.

[ThroneofDravaris]

If someone revives my “Contemporary FF games: over criticized?” thread I would be eternally grateful.

It was too young to die….

[Del Murder]

I had a thread with about a quiz in general chat. The quiz was about which religion you were suited for and it was a couple of months old but everyone who had posted in it was still around. Someone posted in it and then aload of ther people followed but it was still closed. And I still dont see the logic in closing a thread because its old.

General Chat has a high turnover so 1-2 months is considered 'old' for that forum. This is at the discretion of the moderator whether or not to close it. As Archie said, revived threads bump down the newer threads and don't give them a chance. In general if a discussion dies down, it has had its time and doesn't need to be revived. Proto has got it right on as well.