Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Anti-Necrospamming

<< < (12/12)

TaoPhoenix:
The irony here is wondering if we have any newly converted necrophiliacs... :P
-Renegade (August 31, 2015, 11:43 PM)
--- End quote ---

Well, also, if you have a new wrinkle to add, I for one get into a bit of "ooh new shiny" and have no idea some older threads exist. So then someone (legit, non-spam) necro's it, and I go "ooh! That's a thing?"

I've done it a couple of times, notably with the Getting Things Done thread because sometimes we speculate and then it becomes a time capsule "how did that work (or not) for you?"

JavaJones:
Personally I think the whole "necro thread" fear is a bit of barking up the wrong tree. IMO threads *should* be revived *instead* of a new thread *IF* the subject of the new thread is directly relevant to the old one. This keeps continuity and avoids lots of similar but separate threads where discussion gets fragmented, people aren't aware of prior context, etc. I see this happen a *ton* in the forums I manage and it's frustrating. I prefer to see the opposite, old threads being revived preferentially. Yes, you can run into problems on the other end of the spectrum, threads getting monstrous, overwhelming, and no longer on the original topic, but this is not strictly a "don't revive old threads" issue, rather it's a more general and useful "keep threads on topic" issue. If everyone stuck to that much more clear and useful rule, then not only would old and long-lived threads be kept on topic, *all* threads would be! On some of my forums we have 10 page threads that occur over the space of only a week or two, so the long topic issue is not confined to necro thread posting, and sometimes indeed these threads go off topic, so again it's more an issue of keeping on topic IMO.

Just my 2 (or 3 or 4 :D ) cents.

- Oshyan

Deozaan:
I mostly don't care anymore, but here's how I explained it nearly 5 years ago the last time this thread was necro-posted to:

Maybe when I wrote the original topic, I was really mad about something (such as what was then a "recent" necro-spammer trend). But now, two years later, that "trend" isn't much of a trend, so the whole conversation is pointless because it no longer reflects the current reality. Or maybe I've had a change of heart since then. Maybe I'm a completely different person now than I was then.

The point is, when someone resurrects a really old thread, and it's been so long that nobody remembers it or perhaps they are a "new" member (within the past two years since the thread was last discussed) and have never seen it before, people start jumping in like it's a fresh conversation because they don't notice the date, when really it's been dead in the water for years.-Deozaan (January 06, 2011, 03:31 PM)
--- End quote ---

JavaJones:
People need to just be aware of the context of the thread they're responding to, *regardless of how old it is*. If people see a thread for the first time and jump to the most recent post and start replying to *that* without reading the full thread, it causes the same problem, no matter how old the thread is.

- Oshyan

Deozaan:
Wise words. :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page