What's wrong with necroposting?

[ApK]

I've seen several posters get slapped down rather hard by mods lately for necroposting. That is, posting to threads that have been inactive for several years.

Now I clearly understand that sometimes people (like, um, me) ACCIDENTALLY post to old threads, not realizing how old they were, but sometimes, they just happen to be on a topic that some one feels like bringing up again.

What on Earth is wrong with that? What's wrong with having one on-topic thread with both the new comments and the historical perspective?

I would argue that if the thread is worth keeping online, then it should be OK to post to it. After all, people also get slapped for creating new threads when there are other active threads on a similar topic, so clearly the idea of keeping discussions together isn't a radical suggestion.

If the 'dead' threads have no value, then they should be archived, or automatically locked after x number of months with no posts.

If they have value and are left open for a reason, then let them be revived as desired.
It seems wrong to leave the door open and then chastise people for walking in.

Heck, it seems like it's okay to have one ancient zillion-page monolithic support thread that users are expected to plod through to see if their issue was mentioned two years ago on page umpteen-hundred-and-forty. If any threads should be forced into retirement and reborn in a new thread, it's those !

ApK

[PeterT]

I think one real issue is that so SO often, the original issue is long LONG solved. For instance, it's quite common to see necroposting on an issue that affected calibre 0.82 (random version), while the current version is 1.42, and the original issue no longer exists.

[eschwartz]

It depends on the thread. Very often, the necropost comes as a piece of advice that would have been useful years ago (possibly only applicable to an old version of software e.g. calibre) and posted with a complete disregard to whether or not anyone cares.

In an odd example, I reported a necropost that was someone's offer to organize Kindle "My Clippings.txt" for $20 -- a couple of years later. That one was wrong on so many levels....


I imagine the mods take their best guess as to whether it "feels" right as part of the old thread. There are no hard rules, you just know it when you see it.

[DoctorOhh]

As PeterT notes all necroposts or all forums aren't the same. Also necroposting is an option here at Mobilread and serves a valuable service for most all of the forums at Mobileread. However in some forums, calibre being one, necroposting often wastes users time.

In the Calibre forum about 20% of necroposts are left alone because the thread may get the responses the user needs because the topic is generic and folks subscribed may have the answers.

But in most of the cases of necroposting in the Calibre forum the original post has little to do with the new post since the original was referring to a version of calibre 50, 100, or 200+ versions out of date. This wastes the time of folks who see an apparent new thread pop to the top of a forum and post an answer to the original poster before they are aware that the post is a year plus old and was recently brought back from the dead. If the post is spotted early enough we move it to its own thread so the user gets the help s/he needs without any confusion.

However in most of the Mobileread forums reviving old threads have no such consequence.

Originally Posted by ApK

I've seen several posters get slapped down rather hard by mods lately for necroposting. That is, posting to threads that have been inactive for several years.

This is not new and has been handled similarly in the Calibre forum for 5 years.

Originally Posted by ApK

Heck, it seems like it's okay to have one ancient zillion-page monolithic support thread that users are expected to plod through to see if their issue was mentioned two years ago on page umpteen-hundred-and-forty. If any threads should be forced into retirement and reborn in a new thread, it's those !

I can't speak for other forums, but in calibre most of these are threads run by a developer for support on a specific plugin or related tool they created. In these cases the threads are valuable support and it is extremely rare that anyone is dinged for not seeing the answer to their question in post 140.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It depends on the thread. Very often, the necropost comes as a piece of advice that would have been useful years ago (possibly only applicable to an old version of software e.g. calibre) and posted with a complete disregard to whether or not anyone cares.

Good example.

[Billi]

I don't mind necroposting too and have also been astonished by some harsh remarks in the closing posts.

I am more annoyed by the opposite: people starting new threads although their topic has been covered here thoroughly before. At least, necroposters cared to use the search function or browse the forum to see if their problem has been solved here before.

(And sometimes it's fun to read the old posts and see who has been active two or three years ago!)

[cromag]

Sometimes a "necropost" strikes me as appropriate if the new post is a very good match to the content of the thread (it was only "mostly dead").

More often than not, though, it's not a good fit:
-- same hardware manufacturer, different model
-- same software, different versions
-- out-of-date pricing issues
-- etc.


At worst it's a little wasted time. It doesn't bother me very much.

[JSWolf]

I don't mind resurrecting an old thread as long as the post that does so is on topic and relevant. When it's not, the mods should move it and any replies to a new thread. Thus, the problem would be solved.

[GrannyGrump]

It depends, too, on the forum "culture" the poster is used to. I used to frequent a software support forum that made necro-posting almost mandatory. If you started a new thread, you were guaranteed to get one or more replies to "USE THE SEARCH STOOPID NOOB, a thread was posted on this subject 4 years ago for cryin' out loud!"

I would love to name names and point fingers, but I still use the product and might need their help again someday.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by GrannyGrump

It depends, too, on the forum "culture" the poster is used to. I used to frequent a software support forum that made necro-posting almost mandatory. If you started a new thread, you were guaranteed to get one or more replies to "USE THE SEARCH STOOPID NOOB, a thread was posted on this subject 4 years ago for cryin' out loud!"

I would love to name names and point fingers, but I still use the product and might need their help again someday.

Go on, name names. Point the finger. Then we can all go over there, find 4 year old threads and start a new thread on the very same topics just to piss off the staff there.

[Salgueiros]

I resurrected a 4 year old thread. The World Cup one. I think it was the right thing to do.

[Canuck_in_Japan]

Originally Posted by Salgueiros

I resurrected a 4 year old thread. The World Cup one. I think it was the right thing to do.

Did it have anything to do with this year's World Cup? I wouldn't post about the London Olympics in the Beijing Olympics thread.

[Salgueiros]

Originally Posted by Canuck_in_Japan

Did it have anything to do with this year's World Cup? I wouldn't post about the London Olympics in the Beijing Olympics thread.

World Cups always have something to do with previous ones. We still talk about the Brazil '82 squad when we talk about playing the beautiful game beautifully or the Italian catenaccio as the eternal counterpoint between playing pretty or winning and the morals or ethics of gamesmanship (see Suarez handball against Ghana in South Africa in 2010) and how it evolves or transforms ...football culture is a holistic thing, and World Cups are part of it.

[Sil_liS]

Since in the "Similar Threads" section as I look at this thread I see threads with the last post in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, it seems strange that people would take issue with resurrection.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Since in the "Similar Threads" section as I look at this thread I see threads with the last post in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, it seems strange that people would take issue with resurrection.

Only one of which is actually similar.

And that one is discussing the exact same issue, in a matter which is still applicable -- so I would be perfectly happy if that one had been revived for this discussion.

It has a good idea, too:

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

I think threads seriously need to auto-lock after a few months. Ideally, nobody with newbie-level karma, post count, or time registered (or some combination of the above) could post to a thread more than a couple of months old; by the time they get past that point, they'll know when it's okay to drag them out of their graves and when not to. But if there's no way to limit necroposting to non-newbies, just auto-lock the blasted threads, because this is starting to get really confusing.

We already have certain restrictions on newbies, I think selective locking would be good and possibly even possible.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Only one of which is actually similar.

And that one is discussing the exact same issue, in a matter which is still applicable -- so I would be perfectly happy if that one had been revived for this discussion.

It has a good idea, too:



We already have certain restrictions on newbies, I think selective locking would be good and possibly even possible.

I did read that thread, but I think that the issue might have had to do with the "Similar Threads" section as well. I mean instead of the person digging up old threads, it seems more likely that they were looking at the "Similar Threads" and commented on those as well.

I think that it would be helpful if the threads in the "Similar Threads" section were not so old.