Grave-robbing or not?

[Supreme2k]

I have seen a few topics "resurrected" from time to time, which have raised a few questions (for me, anyway).

1. How long after the most recent post in a thread until it is considered "dead"?

2. Do threads actually have to die? Unless locked, new info can expand on the subject.

Another reason that ask this is that many times someone will start a new thread, then they will get hammered with "Do a forum search! This topic has been discussed many times!" If that person does a search, but none of the topics address his issue exactly, is it okay to add to that thread?

Of course, I'm not referring to the resurrections for the sake of arguing, sometimes as if they were fresh ("See?! I told you idiots that DVD-R would come down to under 50 cents each!" OP:3/4/2001 New:11/7/2005)

[ROF]

The only truely dead topics IMO are those topics which have been resolved with the last post(or few posts) containing the solution. Very few end this way or at least they end with multiple solutions or simply die out.

I really do not care for those who respond to people that using the search will help them. Searching for something about your particular problem can be like finding ice in an ice shed or like finding ice in the middle of the desert under the blazing sun. You either find alot of topics that are similiar but unrelated to your question or you can't ifnd any at all because you aren't using proper terminology.

I'd say if you find a topic similiar to your issue. Really similiar go ahead and post in that topic even if it's an old topic that hasn't been discussed in what seems like forever or else start a new thread. The worst or best thing someone can do is either tell you to search or even more helpful post a link to the related topic while telling you to do a search.

[Supreme2k]

That's nice 'n all, but I was hoping for a real response, say from Baldrick or the mods.

[lordsmurf]

The general rule of thumb is the topic is dead when nobody has anything to add WHILE staying on topic. Usually a topic is dredged up by threadjackers, or people that respond so far after the fact that it doesn't matter anymore. Rarely is it continued on topic, and the context relevant. When that happens, those usually end up as stickies.

That's what we always did, seemed to work.

[ROF]

The Member/Moderator has spoken.

[mats.hogberg]

Most of the times a topic rises up from its grave after a year of decomposing, it's usually a spammer searching for something to look relevant to his/her product.

/Mats

[Faustus]

I dunno there has been a few times on forums where I preferred to add to an older topic rather then starting a new one. As long as its still on topic I don't really have a problem with it personally speaking.

It can however be confusing when it happens so there is that element.

[pchan]

I beg to differ.

"Star Wars - hit me with your best shot" is one good example.

[ROF]

It can be confusing or even give some members who participated in that thread feelings of deja vu.

As long as it stays on topic adding to a thread long after it's died is easier on the search engine.

[offline]

Right now there is no specific rule covering this. If you guys think there should be one, what would you suggest?

Should all threads over a certain date/age be automatically locked? Should there be a specific "grave-digging" offense and, if so, what would it cover and to what degree would it be enforced? Is it enough of a problem to add yet more rules to this site? or is clarification important?

One policy might be to ask members to only paste a short cut to the old thread they wish to refer to?

Any thoughts/ideas are welcomed.

[ROF]

If it's done for spamming purposes I'd say let the moderator judge it based on that. Otherwise it may be valid to dig up 4 year old topics or it might be someone who thought they might add to an existing thread rather than have their name appear as the original poster. Some people are uncomfortable starting a topic but have no problems adding to an existing one.

I don't think a specific offense is necessary IMO. The intent is usually pretty obvious.

[gll99]

I don't see it as a problem right now.
Sometimes you see one but it's not like there is a real issue over it.

There was one recently that struck me as funny because no-one answered the original question and the next poster a year or 2 later was asking a totally different question so I commented on it with a joke about him threadjacking a 2 year old thread.

I would leave this one for the mods to call on a per case basis. There could be unresolved issues that a year or more later have an answer so it may be appropriate to continue the topic.

If it's re-opened to continue some long lost argument or pet peeve then I think reporting the thread for mod action should suffice.

[offline]

The Member/Moderator has spoken.

You should know that LordSmurf continues in an official capacity maintaining a section of the lists, and that he and Adam carry a significant amount of respect and influence despite being on "holidays".

[vitualis]

There is no "use by date".

However, if a thread whose content is woefully out of date and someone "revives" it by posting an essentially off topic new post, then it will be locked. Keep it "on topic" and there won't be a problem, though this is almost always not the case when someone gravejacks a 2 year old thread.

Regards.

[jimmalenko]

I'm only a "nobody" here, but personally I don't see much of a problem provided that the new post remains "true" to the general direction the thread was taking when it first tapered off. Even if it's had some water under the bridge and perhaps time to reflect and re-assess the situation.

At times nostalgia is good, even if it is just a post to say "Gee, weren't we doing things the hard way then !" or whatever. It's the threadjackers / spammers / antagonists that still need to be dealt with via RTP on a case by case basis, and I don't think we need any hard and fast rules that could be implemented more than the existing threadjacking / spamming / offensive behaviour rules already in place. I don't see why they're any less relevant to grave-robbed threads.

[thecoalman]

The problem I see with it is that many time you do not check the date of the original post and may answer a post an answer to the original poster.... Chances are they will never see it or it has become irrelevant.

Someone can always reference the other topic.

[mats.hogberg]

The problem I see with it is that many time you do not check the date of the original post

Been there, done that. Embarassing.
But. I'm with Jimmalenko on this. The rules that are, will take care of the bad sides of graverobbed threads too.

/Mats

[Faustus]

I'd like to bring a very old post back and see if I can trick someone into answering their own question.

[mats.hogberg]

We all have our different "turn on"s....

/Mats

[thecoalman]

I'd like to bring a very old post back and see if I can trick someone into answering their own question.

I found the flag below from a old post... Check the URL. I was going to bring back a very old noobish post from LS and answer his question....

[Nelson37]

IMO, its a case-by-case issue.

Some threads have legitimately died out.

Others only get periodic, but useful input.

I do NOT like the idea of simply referencing the original post, as what if that post is locked or deleted? If the new info is a continuation, it should go on the old post.

Case in point. There is a thread on real-time AC3 capture which is well over a year old, and went several months with no input at all. Then some new input was added, making the entire post significantly more informational and useful. Either section by itself would not have the same total value.

[ROF]

So the general consensus is that grave robbing or spamming a thread back to life should be dealt with on a thread by thread basis?

Sounds good to me.

[mats.hogberg]

Me too.

/Mats

[SatStorm]

There are little issues that pops once in a while. Also, older posts are very usefull for those using older hardware. And people use older equipment for more dedicated jobs and this hobby is one of them.
Bumping old topics may be usefull or disturbing. But this is for just any post: New or old...

IMO, bump a thread when is usefull. There is nothing bad with this.