Reviving old threads

[Light Mage]

Just a question out of curiosity: why is it frowned upon to revive old threads?

Wouldn't it be easier to just auto-lock any threads that havn't been contributed to after a certain amount of time?

That way you wouldn't be able to comment on postings that were made ages ago as the topics are still "current" in the forum.
:-)

[Destai]

I dont undertsand why theyd want to lock a thread because its old anyway. I dont see the point of it and its never been explained to me. Well FoA attempted to explain it to me but I still didnt get it (Well maybe I did but I've forgotten)

[Meat Puppet]

If you care about yesterday, you care about history.

[TasteyPies]

There is nothing logicly wrong with reviving old threads. If noone realy cares, it will just die a second time anyway.

[Reine]

If you go about reviving all your own threads, thats when they usually frown on you. A lot of people dont like reviving old threads because they feel that everyone will shun them for it. They tend to wait till someone else does it, or they'll remake one exactly like it.

I can and will revive an old thread if it interests me, and only if the Site Staff put a rule up, will I stop.

So, feel free to revive an old thread if you want, just make sure there isnt a similar one up. The only threads that the Staff dont want continued, are the ones they lock.

[Agent Proto]

Ok, here's the what's up on necroposting. The staff frown upon necroposting when a thread is several months old, say at least 2-3 months old. Depending on the post made that revived the thread, they may or may not close the thread. The older the thread, the higher the chance they will close the thread, regardless if your post isn't spamming it.

[Destai]

Ok, here's the what's up on necroposting. The staff frown upon necroposting when a thread is several months old, say at least 2-3 months old. Depending on the post made that revived the thread, they may or may not close the thread. The older the thread, the higher the chance they will close the thread, regardless if your post isn't spamming it.And I still dont know why they close the thread just because its old.

[Meat Puppet]

I wish that people would do that in real life.

[crono_logical]

If you go about reviving all your own threads, thats when they usually frown on you. A lot of people dont like reviving old threads because they feel that everyone will shun them for it. They tend to wait till someone else does it, or they'll remake one exactly like it.

I can and will revive an old thread if it interests me, and only if the Site Staff put a rule up, will I stop.

So, feel free to revive an old thread if you want, just make sure there isnt a similar one up. The only threads that the Staff dont want continued, are the ones they lock.Where did all that crap come from?


There is nothing logicly wrong with reviving old threads. If noone realy cares, it will just die a second time anyway.The problem is a revived thread bumps newer threads down the page, even if it will die again.

Old revived threads are closed so people can make a new thread if they really want to talk about the same topic again. Chances are most of the people in the old thread and original discussion have moved on anyway. This also means what's seen as an acceptable age of the thread varies from forum to forum - threads in the slower game forums can generally be revived from being older than threads say in GC, where the thread turnaround on the first page seems to change almost daily. Then there's also the topic to take into account too - if the thread's about someone needing help on a problem and it's completely solved, it's more likely to get closed if it's revived. Plus other factors. Basically use that thing above your shoulders. :p

Proto's put it most accurately, but that's expected, with him being former staff :p


And yes, we've banned people before who've persistantly revived lots of old threads :D

[Destai]

I had a thread with about a quiz in general chat. The quiz was about which religion you were suited for and it was a couple of months old but everyone who had posted in it was still around. Someone posted in it and then aload of ther people followed but it was still closed. And I still dont see the logic in closing a thread because its old.

[Meat Puppet]

Because closing threads is fun.

*closes* :p

EDIT: Not you, Proto.

[Light Mage]

Old revived threads are closed so people can make a new thread if they really want to talk about the same topic again.
But don't people get told off if they make a thread saying the same thing as a thread already on the boards?

[Shoeberto]

Old revived threads are closed so people can make a new thread if they really want to talk about the same topic again.
But don't people get told off if they make a thread saying the same thing as a thread already on the boards?
If it was a thread recent enough for someone to be able to easily find it on the first or second page, you'll probably get a link to it and a closed thread. It's doubtful you'll get told off, since it's a simple mistake and not really offensive to anyone.

[ThroneofDravaris]

If someone revives my “Contemporary FF games: over criticized?” thread I would be eternally grateful.

It was too young to die….

[Del Murder]

I had a thread with about a quiz in general chat. The quiz was about which religion you were suited for and it was a couple of months old but everyone who had posted in it was still around. Someone posted in it and then aload of ther people followed but it was still closed. And I still dont see the logic in closing a thread because its old.
General Chat has a high turnover so 1-2 months is considered 'old' for that forum. This is at the discretion of the moderator whether or not to close it. As Archie said, revived threads bump down the newer threads and don't give them a chance. In general if a discussion dies down, it has had its time and doesn't need to be revived. Proto has got it right on as well.

[Dixie]

http://pokemon.tcgplayer.com/tcg/scans/base/revive.jpg

Don't leave home without it.Again, you are my best friend.:)

Try to start some original threads? (My color poll was closed....:()

Say you want to make a thread about...food. Look back...like a month ago to see if it was made...That might take too long, though...

[Vyk]

Old revived threads are closed so people can make a new thread if they really want to talk about the same topic again.
But don't people get told off if they make a thread saying the same thing as a thread already on the boards?
If it was a thread recent enough for someone to be able to easily find it on the first or second page, you'll probably get a link to it and a closed thread. It's doubtful you'll get told off, since it's a simple mistake and not really offensive to anyone.
Sorry to single you out, but I've been wondering about this myself. So let me get this straight: it's less offensive to make a duplicate thread (on accident of course) than to do the diligent thing and actually look to see if there's already one on the topic you want to discuss? I mean really... who cares if it hasn't been posted in, in a month. It's still open and usable, if something new comes up that can continue the thread where it left off I don't see why it's bad.

I mean yeah, posting in an old thread will bump it to the top, but that's exactly what's going to happen when you make a NEW thread, dealing with an OLD topic o_o;

[Sepho]

clout is using a justified text-align, and this makes me smile.

[crono_logical]

I usually use justified text, and I've even made a j tag in the forums to do it quickly and easily by wrapping the entire post with it :}


Sorry to single you out, but I've been wondering about this myself. So let me get this straight: it's less offensive to make a duplicate thread (on accident of course) than to do the diligent thing and actually look to see if there's already one on the topic you want to discuss? I mean really... who cares if it hasn't been posted in, in a month. It's still open and usable, if something new comes up that can continue the thread where it left off I don't see why it's bad.

I mean yeah, posting in an old thread will bump it to the top, but that's exactly what's going to happen when you make a NEW thread, dealing with an OLD topic o_o;Like I said earlier, use your brain :p Look for the topic first to see if it already exists and use that one, but if it's not on say the first 2 or 3 pages of threads, then chances are it's old such that the previous discussion has died or become forgotton, regardless of if it's usable or not, so you make a new one instead :p

One month may or may not be acceptable depending on the forum and it's activeness - we don't set exact age cutoffs for threads to not be revived exactly because the speed of discussion varies from forum to forum.

[Yamaneko]

I close old threads that have been revived because if we allow one old thread to be revived then we allow them all to be revived. That would cause a mess in the forums.

[Destai]

I close old threads that have been revived because if we allow one old thread to be revived then we allow them all to be revived. That would cause a mess in the forums.Except of course since that would never happen. Ever. I cant think of any reason why one thread reviving would allow every thread to be revived. There would still be the average ammount at the end of the day. It would make no difference at all.

[Big D]

Threads "die" because people have lost interest and stopped replying to them. This means that reviving the thread is very unlikely to contribute anything, especially if someone posts in last year's "what's your favourite food?" thread and just says "LOL NOODLEZ" or something.

Sometimes, a genuinely interesting topic gets revived, and it generates enough interest that it's left open. However, that's not the general rule.

[Destai]

Threads "die" because people have lost interest and stopped replying to them. This means that reviving the thread is very unlikely to contribute anything, especially if someone posts in last year's "what's your favourite food?" thread and just says "LOL NOODLEZ" or something.

Sometimes, a genuinely interesting topic gets revived, and it generates enough interest that it's left open. However, that's not the general rule.As I understand it creating the same thread two years later will have the exact same effect. By which I mean, will make no difference.

[Leeza]

One main reason I don't like threads revived is because a lot of the people who have posted in them more than likely already stopped posting at EoFF. Also because some people who have already posted in them forget and post again. This is unnecessary. If it's an FF help thread of some sort and the help can still be continued, then that's fine, but that's not the sort of thread that's usually revived.

If it's an interesting enough topic, then it should be started in a new thread to get new responses and not regurgitate old ones.

[Destai]

One main reason I don't like threads revived is because a lot of the people who have posted in them more than likely already stopped posting at EoFF. Also because some people who have already posted in them forget and post again. This is unnecessary. If it's an FF help thread of some sort and the help can still be continued, then that's fine, but that's not the sort of thread that's usually revived.
Well I dont really see what the problem is with the people who have stopped posting at eyes on ff and if anyone was to repeat a previous post in the thread Im confident it would be a very small number. Opening a new thread would cause more of what Id consider un necessary posts than letting the old one open.

[Leeza]

It's best to just give it up, Destai because all threads that are revived will be looked at on a case by case basis and if a Mod thinks that it shouldn't be revived, it will be closed.

[Destai]

I cant honestly say I care Leeza. Im just making conversation because Im bored, not just because closing revived threads is pointless.

[Cloud No.9]

me thinks if new news on a matter comes through then it should be allowed. look at me and de menesez. having to make a new thread every week cos the last one died when new info comes out.

[Agent Proto]

I honestly don't see anything wrong with reviving a thread that had no replies for a few months, but when it's say... from last year, and started by a member who hardly posts nowadays, it can confuse the current members.

So, let's say a thread started by... HOOTERS got revived. This will likely confuse several members thinking he got unbanned and started posting, but when they open the "new" thread, they find out it's a revived thread. So they got excited over nothing. That's another reason why reviving old threads is bad.

[Shlup]

Sometimes I post in revived threads 'cause I forgot I posted in it a year ago and then I feel silly. ;_;

[Yamaneko]

Here, I'll make it easy for you guys: you can't revive old threads because we said so. Obey or perish.

[Agent Proto]

*revive threads older than 2 months

[Kawaii Ryûkishi]

Four months is my limit, actually.

[Vyk]

See, I think therein lies the problem. Now a threat of punishment is lingering over people's heads, and they have no idea what's acceptable. To post in a thread that hasn't had much life in a month? Or make a new one about a topic that's only been dead for two weeks? Depending on the mod, it's likely to get locked in either case. And if this member is unfortunate enough to stumble across this problem multiple times? I know you guys aren't the borg, so consistency needn't be an issue. I think this maybe got blown a little far out of proportion. Need there be threats of punishment laid down when in either case it could be argued they were thinking and doing what they thought was the best choice :D

What I mean to say is, people are going to read this and get paranoid. I know what you guys are trying to say though.

[Del Murder]

That's why it is a case by case basis. If you don't think a thread is too old, post in it. If it gets closed you'll know that you were wrong, and not to do it again in a similar situation. You won't get in trouble as long as you don't do many at once.

[kikimm]

I'll let you all know now: if a thread gets revived in the X-2 forum, I will always, always close it. Other threads in other forums have more of a chance. Because I am a dirty dirty mod who likes playing favourites. :) :) :)

[Del Murder]

Stay away from the X-2 Forum. It is too beautiful for you to taint it.

[rubah]

How about this: if it actually takes effort to find to post in, it's not worth it.

[Leeza]

Well, that won't always work either, rubah, because in General Chat even the third page will have threads that are only a couple of weeks old at times and should be investigated before posting a new thread on a similar/same topic. So that takes a little effort.

[Destai]

I honestly don't see anything wrong with reviving a thread that had no replies for a few months, but when it's say... from last year, and started by a member who hardly posts nowadays, it can confuse the current members.

So, let's say a thread started by... HOOTERS got revived. This will likely confuse several members thinking he got unbanned and started posting, but when they open the "new" thread, they find out it's a revived thread. So they got excited over nothing. That's another reason why reviving old threads is bad."omg whos HOOTERS? Was he here before? Is this a threat from the CK's or something? Im scared and confused!"

[Meat Puppet]

I saw a thread a while ago that HOOTERS had posted in, and it was still active and didn't get closed.

[Destai]

Stay away from the X-2 Forum. It is too beautiful for you to taint it.
I wish Future Esthar did X-2 theorys. The day he starts will be all my birthdays come together at once.

[rubah]

For a bunch of 'woohoo let's revive threads!' people, you sure aren't letting this one die.