'Zombie' threads

cruhoortwunk

Why do mods have such a disdain for an old thread? If the info in the thread are relevant to the conversation or still meaningful, I can't understand why mods jump on it and close it down?

The Hill Billy

Sometimes posters drag up old threads & post out of context in them. This is precisely what happened when you dragged up a thread in Cooking & Recipes that had been dead for 4 years to ask how fish could be sold at a very low price. This was irrelevant to the thread which was about seasonality of fish.

Rather than let an old thread carry on off-topic, the thread was closed & you were advised to start a new thread in Food & Drink. You started a new thread in Cooking & Recipes about low cost fish (nothing to do with cooking or recipes, so I have now moved it to the correct forum) & titled it 'Fish in season' which seems strange to me because your query has nothing to do with seasonality.

But in answer to your question - Mods do not have 'disdain' for old threads. We just like to keep things relevant & in the right plaice. (See what I did there? )

cruhoortwunk

The thread was mostly useful info about Hake, happened to be posted in September (same month), about fish in season (relevant as it is September).
Price of hake could well be linked to it being in season and over supplied.
I have seen plenty of similar useful threads being written off as zombie.
I'm sure you will have the last word on this though Hill billy

The Hill Billy

Your question was specifically about the cost of fish that you purchased & you made no reference to or attempt to tie it in to the thread topic. That is why it was closed.

You mention that other useful thread are being closed due to age. There was no 'disdain' on the part of the moderator in closing old threads, & these actions are taken to keep the forums 'tidy'. They are not done as a personal attack on the poster. When you see this I would suggest dropping a PM to the forum mods explaining why you feel that they should be reopened.

Black Swan

We had a zombie thread that a member dug up that was over 10 years old. Not sure if this set a record on boards. May have. Context was long gone, as were some of the members that had originally posted to it. There's no magic number of years (that I know of) when a thread turns necro. Generally after a year or two of no discussion, it's often recommended that you start a new thread. Just think, you can add spark to an earlier topic, perhaps with a somewhat different context and view that may engage today's members in a lively (as opposed to dead) discussion?

Others may differ. That's my 2 cents... Cheers!

Insect Overlord

Black Swan wrote: »

We had a zombie thread that a member dug up that was over 10 years old. Not sure if this set a record on boards. May have.

There was a re-reg troll a while ago who used to bump the oldest threads on After Hours from time to time. Some of those go back about 15 years now. Mad.

biko

If one of the posters from the first thread posts in it again to update it, it's usually ok.
But some people drag up old threads just because they google something and got a hit on a thread from 2010.
The problem then is that previous posts in thread may no longer be valid and other posters doesn't realise the thread is several years old, and it gets confusing for everyone.

It's case by case but when in doubt start a fresh thread.

Pawwed Rig

Personally if the post adds something to the discussion I will leave the thread run but if it is just a comment or other irrelevance I would close it down. Bear in mind on some forums people will see what they think is a 'new' thread and start to read from post 1 without checking the dates. It is very frustrating to find that what you're reading is 5 years old and half the contributors have long since closed their account so will not read the witty responses you have thought up for them.
I think the mod in this case went above and beyond what he would have been expected to do and has been very helpful to you.

Shakespeare's Sister

I agree with the OP. It shouldn't matter a jot that the thread is old so long as the topic is relevant and is not time-sensitive. As someone who dislikes clutter and likes reusing, I very much like the idea of recycling threads and keeping thread numbers down.

cruhoortwunk

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

I agree with the OP. It shouldn't matter a jot that the thread is old so long as the topic is relevant and is not time-sensitive. As someone who dislikes clutter and likes reusing, I very much like the idea of recycling threads and keeping thread numbers down.

Yep, and it shows the person actually had a search for related posts before posting. Rather than just blindly posting a question or comment that has been asked or said before many times

Tokyo

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

I agree with the OP. It shouldn't matter a jot that the thread is old so long as the topic is relevant and is not time-sensitive. As someone who dislikes clutter and likes reusing, I very much like the idea of recycling threads and keeping thread numbers down.

cruhoortwunk wrote: »

Yep, and it shows the person actually had a search for related posts before posting. Rather than just blindly posting a question or comment that has been asked or said before many times

There's nothing stopping you from referencing the relevant posts/threads in your new thread....

The Hill Billy

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

I agree with the OP. It shouldn't matter a jot that the thread is old so long as the topic is relevant and is not time-sensitive. As someone who dislikes clutter and likes reusing, I very much like the idea of recycling threads and keeping thread numbers down.

But it wasn't relevant in this case & this was explained above.