Necroing Threads

Necroing Threads (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

NihilusZero -> Necroing Threads (2/15/2011 8:11:37 PM)
A recent event on one of the fora involved this and it suddenly got me thinking about the entire concept and how it's so universally net-hated...for little-to-no reason (aside from silly ones), it seems. The typical reasoning points I see are: * "If the topic died, it's probably for a reason." Which seems like an empty way of saying that discussion shouldn't be encouraged in a discussion medium if someone wants to discuss a topic. * "The information there is outdated." Which seems to ignore the fact that any historical information can be the impetus for a genuine thought. Furthermore, it's often likely that a very specific niche comment in a previous thread (rather than a general topic) is what sparks someone's interest in responding. * "You should start a new topic and link back to the old topic." Um...Occam's Razor? It seems necroing allows for information to be better consolidated and gives people the reference points that some tend to tell newbies to "search for!" when starting a new thread about a topic that has been discussed incessantly already (it's certainly easier to tell a necroer that his/her answer is in one of the earlier pages if they care to go look rather than having them do a convoluted search through threads). I suspect it even (perhaps only very marginally) makes for lesser load on the servers. About the only substantial reason I can see for the anti-necro sentiments are that it embarrasses people who post in them without realizing the threads are months or years old (oh noes...the public shame!) and perhaps the fear that animosity from a discussion that's died could get reignited (in which case, it would be or should have been locked, no?). So, feel free to offer up your thoughts, pro or con, for necroing threads. Maybe I'm missing something. This discussion isn't intended as activism of any kind to actually affect what policies are used here, it's just for the sake of dissecting an internet meme to see if it makes sense at all.

WyldHrt -> RE: Necroing Threads (2/15/2011 8:26:11 PM)
quote: About the only substantial reason I can see for the anti-necro sentiments are that it embarrasses people who post in them without realizing the threads are months or years old (oh noes...the public shame!) This is sort of, but not actually, my issue with necro threads. It has nothing to do with embarrassment, and everything to do with people who are genuinely concerned about a particular situation taking the time to write a lengthy response, only to find that the OP is months or years old and the person is long gone. The other, related problem that crops up with old threads is that people will often quote a comment to ask a question of a poster who hasn't been on the boards in years. I really don't see the problem of asking posters to start a new thread and link to the old, particularly as it gives the now OP the opportunity to put their own spin on the subject, and perhaps use a more accurate thread title. Linking to the old thread helps with continuity and understanding what inspired the OP to start a thread.

NihilusZero -> RE: Necroing Threads (2/15/2011 8:45:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyldHrt This is sort of, but not actually, my issue with necro threads. It has nothing to do with embarrassment, and everything to do with people who are genuinely concerned about a particular situation taking the time to write a lengthy response, only to find that the OP is months or years old and the person is long gone. The other, related problem that crops up with old threads is that people will often quote a comment to ask a question of a poster who hasn't been on the boards in years. I can see this. So advice threads are particularly dangerous traps to fall into in that regard. I would think that if someone put some genuine thought into typing a reply that it could possible still have value for someone else? quote: ORIGINAL: WyldHrt I really don't see the problem of asking posters to start a new thread and link to the old, particularly as it gives the now OP the opportunity to put their own spin on the subject, and perhaps use a more accurate thread title. Linking to the old thread helps with continuity and understanding what inspired the OP to start a thread. But, isn't that exactly what quoting another person in the original thread would be? Except, in this case, a whole new thread is started to do that very process, adding an additional step (since people will still need to refer to the old thread to get the full context, which makes the idea of 'less pages to scroll through' moot, no?). Oh, and it occurred to me that an exception I know of is when someone is willfully necroing masses of threads to drown the main page of a forum with nonsense, but that strikes me as more an issue of spamming and cross-posting than specifically necroing.

LadyPact -> RE: Necroing Threads (2/15/2011 10:01:33 PM)
I'd much rather see folks start a new thread and link the old. Especially in those cases where a person feels the need to make an addition that is directed to a person that is no longer here. That tends to make the comment somewhat pointless, since that person is gone so the person they are directing the comments to can't possibly answer. Taking it from the other direction, if someone has a question regarding an old original post, their question doesn't get addressed because people have already made their comments months or even years ago. I suppose I don't see the point of answering the same question twice within the same thread. Plus, with the system here, it 'bumps' an old thread, rather than keeping the most recent conversations on the most recent page. I do attempt to encourage folks to read past threads. There have been some fabulous contributions made by folks who aren't here any longer on past topics that are unique contributions that aren't duplicated by the current members. Some of that back info is darn good stuff. One situation in particular that I'm in favor of bringing a thread back. That is when the OP themselves want to update the forum members or come back and say how their issue was resolved. Other than that, I'd rather see threads locked after they are three months old.

WyldHrt -> RE: Necroing Threads (2/15/2011 10:10:47 PM)
quote: I can see this. So advice threads are particularly dangerous traps to fall into in that regard. I would think that if someone put some genuine thought into typing a reply that it could possible still have value for someone else? Possibly, but it is quite irksome to post a reply to a very specific situation and perhaps even worry a bit about the OP only to find out later that the thread is years old. Also, the fact is that no two situations are going to be exactly alike and a seemingly minor detail might change the entire response. Although I know it won't happen, it would be better for folks to start their own threads. That said, people grow and change over time. Something I posted in a thread 2 years ago might be completely different than what I would post in a new thread on the same subject started today. As many people don't check the date on a post, it would be a bit confusing to read a post from someone happy in a relationship when you know that they broke up with their former partner 3 days before. It would also be confusing to read 2 completely conflicting statements from the same person apparently made days apart. This is, perhaps, what people meant by outdated information. I noticed that you didn't really reply to my last point, which was people asking questions or clarification from someone who hasn't been on the boards in years. While others might jump in, it is more likely that the person will get an eyeroll and a bit of snark. Tis the way of forums. quote: But, isn't that exactly what quoting another person in the original thread would be? Except, in this case, a whole new thread is started to do that very process, adding an additional step (since people will still need to refer to the old thread to get the full context, which makes the idea of 'less pages to scroll through' moot, no?). No. First off, I never said anything about quoting from the original thread. Secondly, starting a new thread provides a break in the 'thread time continuum', allowing others to decide how much of the former thread they wish to read. If the original thread is a 30 page trainwreck, I really don't feel the need to reread it all to get to a post that quotes someone on page 4. Thirdly, asking for a new thread discourages someone replying to said 30 page trainwreck with a quote and, "LOL, that was funny".

shallowdeep -> RE: Necroing Threads (2/16/2011 12:56:52 AM)
Hmm, consolidation does have its advantages… but, there may also be something to be said for some temporal segregation. The weirdness and potential for irrelevance of discussion with the original participants no longer present aside, I think a blank slate might be a bit more conducive to getting new responses. If there are already six pages of responses to sift through, that's probably going to deter some people from touching a thread. Allowed to continue indefinitely, consolidation would probably feel more overwhelming than informative. Also, the first few posts often have a way of shaping the direction a thread takes. Linking back provides a point of reference for the interested, but might better allow the new thread to take on its own life and possibly explore some new terrain that would have gone uncovered if too closely following the well-worn paths of the last. Citation rather than full republication seems to work pretty well in a lot of areas. The point about making search less convoluted is a good one, though. Old threads, for the most part, vanish into the ether for all intents and purposes here… and attempting to search through them can be quite a pain. Some sort of trackback system might be an interesting counter to that. When a thread references an old one, the old one could be updated to reflect the new offshoot as well, making it easier to find connections. As a bonus, better threads might get cited more frequently. Keeping track of the number of times things were cited could be used to call deserved attention to some of the best past discussions, similar to the way you can find seminal papers in academic journals. I wonder if something like that has already been implemented in some forum software…

Arpig -> RE: Necroing Threads (2/16/2011 9:38:26 AM)
~FR~ I have no problem with reviving ancient threads...in fact I wish the D&D forum I hang out on sometimes was more receptive to necroing....some interesting discussions to be found in the dead letter office so to speak.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125