Why are old threads closed when they are resurrected after a few years?

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Just wanted to know why there seem to be a policy to close a thread which is resurrected after a few years?

I mean I can see a merit to keep a thread still active, cause if we discuss experiment in physics or whatever which its results may be availabe only after some years after the post was initiated then we can keep the discussion alive and see if our predictions are met or not.

 

[Hurkyl]

Just wanted to know why there seem to be a policy to close a thread which is resurrected after a few years?

The policy isn't to forbid resurrection, but to have far less tolerance for more questionable postings.

if we discuss experiment in physics or whatever which its results may be availabe only after some years after the post was initiated

Typically, you'd be better served starting a new thread as a follow-up (with a reference to the old one) than actually continuing the old thread anyways.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Also, the rules have evolved over the years, so posts that were acceptable years ago may no longer be.

Also, some people seem to think that people who posted six years ago have spent the intervening time just waiting for them to respond.

 

[dlgoff]

It is okay I believe to use old threads for references sometimes. And it may depend on the mentors in charge of the different forum sections. e.g. https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3222200&postcount=5"

 

[TurtleMeister]

Also, some people seem to think that people who posted six years ago have spent the intervening time just waiting for them to respond.

I haven't been here six years, but I wouldn't mind someone responding to my old posts. Yeah, I'm still waiting. :)

Resurrected threads are only a problem for me when I don't notice the date. It would be nice if there were some way to make these old threads stand out, maybe use a different color icon or something. Sometimes a high views count causes me to notice that it's an old thread.

 

[DaveC426913]

It would be nice if there were some way to make these old threads stand out, maybe use a different color icon or something. Sometimes a high views count causes me to notice that it's an old thread.

They stand out by being locked.

 

[TurtleMeister]

They stand out by being locked.

Yes, that works. And I agree with it in many cases. But I was referring to a possible software mod that would flag a thread when there is a significant time gap between posts. This would also help the moderators when the thread needs to be locked.

 

[JaredJames]

Yes, that works. And I agree with it in many cases. But I was referring to a possible software mod that would flag a thread when there is a significant time gap between posts. This would also help the moderators when the thread needs to be locked.

If only they showed the date and time of each post...

Oh wait, that should be if only people bothered to read said date and times...

 

[DaveC426913]

If only they showed the date and time of each post...

Oh wait, that should be if only people bothered to read said date and times...

Haha. Seriously though, do you check the date of every post you read?

 

[JaredJames]

Only if the thread is either unknown to me (aka a new thread I haven't been in before) or if I haven't had recent activity with it (so I'm subscribed but haven't had it pop up in a while).

If it's one I'm interacting with regularly then I don't see the need.

 

[TurtleMeister]

The point is that you do not know that there is a time gap until you enter the thread and compare the dates. Only the date of the last post is displayed in the thread list. And if the thread has multiple pages and you enter the last page, as I sometimes do, you may not even know it at all.

 

[JaredJames]

You don't know the time difference even with the last post date on the list page?

Today's date - last post date = time to last post.

If its been resurrected and not deleted, there's a good chance its being allowed. So it isn't an issue.

It's hardly a difficult thing to check. The discussion here is making out that looking at the top left of a post is a nightmare task. Bit lazy if you ask me.

I'm all for making things easier, but there comes a point where it's just taking the p***.

 

[DaveC426913]

You don't know the time difference even with the last post date on the list page?

Today's date - last post date = time to last post.

This only works if you are the one doing the first necropost (rare for most of us here). If the thread has resurfaced because someone else just necroposted (usually a newbie), then you can't tell, but you still feel foolish for posting in a thread years old.

This accounts for the vast majority of cases, ime.

 

[TurtleMeister]

You don't know the time difference even with the last post date on the list page?

Today's date - last post date = time to last post.

If its been resurrected and not deleted, there's a good chance its being allowed. So it isn't an issue.

It's hardly a difficult thing to check. The discussion here is making out that looking at the top left of a post is a nightmare task. Bit lazy if you ask me.

I'm all for making things easier, but there comes a point where it's just taking the p***.

The time to the last post tells us nothing about the date difference between the resurrection post and the post before it. You have to go into the thread and look for it. There may have been several posts since the resurrection post.

 

[JaredJames]

There are two ways I see it happening:

1. If you resurrect the thread, then you haven't checked the last post date (in thread or in thread list). Your fault.

2. If you go into a 'dead' thread that has been resurrected and reply (not pointing out the necro issue) then you are still neglecting to check thread dates. Still your fault. (I agree Dave, this is the majority of cases.)

Again, the data is available and you are able to check it very simply. There is no reason outside of (minor) negligence to miss it.

If a thread has multiple pages and the necros have spanned a few of them so you can't see it died a while back, then the discussion has obviously been allowed to continue as the mentors have deemed it 'worthwhile' so you can continue. If you go far enough back in the thread to quote someone (necro-quote style), you should check the date of the post you are quoting.

So outside of being too lazy to check the dates that are on every post (and let's face it, most threads only have 1 or 2 necros so it's not like it's hard to check), I'm not seeing any problems.

 

[Borek]

Some other forum systems can be configured to display a message "you are replying a thread that is xxxx days old, are you sure?". Unfortunately - from what I know - PF is built on an older version if vBulletin which may not have this option, and as there is plenty of custom code added upgrading PF is not an easy task. Greg does all security upgrades, but nothing more fancy.

 

[TurtleMeister]

There are two ways I see it happening:

1. If you resurrect the thread, then you haven't checked the last post date (in thread or in thread list). Your fault.

2. If you go into a 'dead' thread that has been resurrected and reply (not pointing out the necro issue) then you are still neglecting to check thread dates. Still your fault. (I agree Dave, this is the majority of cases.)

Again, the data is available and you are able to check it very simply. There is no reason outside of (minor) negligence to miss it.

If a thread has multiple pages and the necros have spanned a few of them so you can't see it died a while back, then the discussion has obviously been allowed to continue as the mentors have deemed it 'worthwhile' so you can continue. If you go far enough back in the thread to quote someone (necro-quote style), you should check the date of the post you are quoting.

So outside of being too lazy to check the dates that are on every post (and let's face it, most threads only have 1 or 2 necros so it's not like it's hard to check), I'm not seeing any problems.

This is not necessarily an issue of negligence or laziness. In order for the mentors or mods to allow the discussion to continue they will need to know that it is a resurrected thread. How will they know that, unless someone reports it? This site is very well moderated, but I find it hard to believe that they can check every post of every thread, and do it quickly enough to lock the thread before the discussion continues.

 

[Evo]

This is not necessarily an issue of negligence or laziness. In order for the mentors or mods to allow the discussion to continue they will need to know that it is a resurrected thread. How will they know that, unless someone reports it? This site is very well moderated, but I find it hard to believe that they can check every post of every thread, and do it quickly enough to lock the thread before the discussion continues.

I will allow a dead thread to be resurrected if the old and new posts meet the current guidelines. I notice necroposts almost immediately since a new thread suddenly appears with lots of posts, that's the first clue.

Also, it's a shame that people are responding only to the necropost without reading any other posts in the thread. If they did, they would notice it is a dead thread. Don't you at least read the OP before you post?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think Evo hits on an important point. People who necropost are seldom adding anything new.

 

[TurtleMeister]

I notice necroposts almost immediately since a new thread suddenly appears with lots of posts, that's the first clue.

Yes, I notice that sometimes also, but it's not always the case with every resurrected thread.

Also, it's a shame that people are responding only to the necropost without reading any other posts in the thread. If they did, they would notice it is a dead thread. Don't you at least read the OP before you post?

No, not always. It depends on my reason for responding. And even when I do I don't always notice the dates. Here's an example. I think this was the first necropost that got me. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=147282
How long did it take you to find the necropost? No, it's not a lot of trouble, but I'll bet you don't do that for every thread you read.

I think Evo hits on an important point. People who necropost are seldom adding anything new.

Yes, in the above example the poster should have started a new thread. But in most cases I think they are new to the forum and don't know any better.

 

[Evo]

Here's an example. I think this was the first necropost that got me. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=147282
How long did it take you to find the necropost? No, it's not a lot of trouble, but I'll bet you don't do that for every thread you read.

I've never seen that thread, I'm not the General Physics mentor.

 

[TurtleMeister]

I've never seen that thread, I'm not the General Physics mentor.

I'm not blaming you lol. I was just using that thread as an example. My only point is, wouldn't it be nice to have the software automatically flag a thread which has a necropost? Seems to me like the mods would love that. Anyway, no big deal. You guys and gals do a great job the way it is.