So what's wrong with "necroposting"?

That's a serious question: I really don't understand why some admins get upset over posting in old threads, when it's relevant. The point of a forum is asynchronous communication, right? And it might even bring older members back, if they have email notifications turned on. Am I missing some drawback here?

 

Michelle, I never understood why people have such a big problem with it. I don't encourage or discourage it - whatever happens, happens and I don't mind it.

 

If it adds something useful that's fine but if it's a 'me too' post it aggravates me.

 

That will annoy me to no end. That, and responses such as "Yeah.", "Okay.", "Nice.", and "Sure.".

 

Depends entirely on the context. Waking up an old version specific thread to comment about a feature that has been available for a while will cause some confusion for me.

Waking up threads that are still relevant does not cause me confusion. A necroposting thread will always be relevant so waking up this thread years from now won't cause me confusion. :p

Of course one should not wake up threads unless there is a reason. Such as asking a question or new information relevant to the thread.

 

Usually necroposting falls down to either self-promotion or advertising. Very rarely does someone come along to a three year old thread and actually revive the conversation. Another issue is how relevant is a discussion two or three years later?

Personally, I would examine it on a case-by-case basis and deal with issues as needed but I can understand why some dislike the practice.

 

Wayne hit the nail on the head here. I've seen threads brought back from the dead when it was only some lame post or just an advertisement. I've brought up 5 year old threads with information pertaining to the thread, so it was worth the major bump.

 

I suppose the only reason as to why someone would necro an old topic is that they felt something was left unsaid. But other than that, I don't know why someone would get all uppity about it.

 

I let people do it if they want to. I want people to post on my site so I would never discourage anything that helps that.

 

The regulars (and even admins/mods) on some forums like to give newbs a hard time about resurrecting old threads. :lol: But, It's no big deal to me. All of the fresh content usually stays in the front.

 

I've seen some forums that have modifications installed which will automatically close threads after being inactive for x days/weeks/months. Personally, I think this is a bit extreme but if it's a common problem, I could see it coming in handy.

 

I don't have a problem with "extreme" thread bumps when the response is worthwhile. Sometimes, it's better to have just made a new thread, though. It depends on the situation of the thread and the post used to bump it. Either way, you lock it or you don't; nothing I would ever make a big deal about like I've seen on some forums.

 

It all depends on the thread. If the conversation can be carried on smoothly, then I'm all for reviving old threads. But for threads asking for game support or showing off parks or roller coasters made in-game, I do not appreciate necroposting, because it serves no benefit to the forum or thread.

 

It depends entirely on the members ability to use common sense but I really do not like closed threads for keeping track of some information. Especially the auto lock after 6 months.

If the members are planing anything long term like a physical meeting of members 18 months from now and the thread gets closed when it becomes 6 months old it causes much frustration.

Or a long term research project where people give updates every few months.

 

The only time it bothers me is if a member wants help. They post in an old thread and say "I have the exact same problem and it's not fixed!?!?". Well, no you don't because otherwise the fix that was posted that fixed the problem for the original poster would have fixed the problem for you also!

 

Good point!

This bothers me to no-end. For support issues, I hate when people bump old threads.

 

That is a little extreme. From a member's POV, there's time when I might stumble on an old thread that never had a solution posted and I want to post a solution or something like that.

On the other hand, as admin I have to think: Today how relevant is a thread that's 2 or 3 years old?

 

I agree with mostly what has been said...

If the reply has some relevence I have no issues with it, however if it is something like "LOL" or "+1" or something i get annoyed, I do not close threads though as I know sometimes more information comes to hand that should be given to members etc.

 

***is necroposting now***

lol, im terrible for this, i do it cause im most active late at night, and when its quiet and ive gone through all the unread posts, i still want something to read, and i love going back to the beginning just to see what happened in the past before i joined. sometimes i see a thread i want to comment on, and i do (unless the forum mods have a problem with it, but i normally find that out before i post by looking through the posts!)

i think it could bring more activity because if the post was from ages ago, there might be new members who have an opinion on the subject, and it could get the conversation going again.

although normally, i have no problem with it, if the post is a very short post, like "lol" or "me too" it can get annoying, and i will probably lock the thread.

some threads arent meant to be bumped, like ones where people are just talking about anything (things like debates are ok, but not ones where people are having an off topic conversation), and when the thread is very out of date (merry christmas when its june, or happy birthday to a member when their birthday was weeks ago). these threads would normally be locked.