17 replies to this topic

[+Brando212]

I'd like to see neowin have a rule about Necro Posts.

a necro post is when someone bumps a thread that is a set amount of time old (usually the poster is better off just creating a new thread)

a lot of forums I'm a member of have this rule and I think it is a good one

I've been seeing a lot of necro posts here on neowin lately, a lot of 2 to 3 year old threads being pointlessly bumped just because the person has a question that is "loosely" in line with what the thread was about

a good time set for a forum as big as nowin for what is considered a necro post i think would be ~6 months

what do you guys think, would it be worth it in the long run to add this rule?

[TRC]

Brando212, on 25 April 2012 - 06:09, said:

what do you guys think, would it be worth it in the long run to add this rule?

I'll think it over and respond to this thread one year from now to let you know.

[Nightwind Hawk]

I don't see how it hurts to really have an old thread be dug up if it is related to the original discussion - rather than start a new one. It always annoys me when things are closed for small reasons, like untagged posts or now this because it doesn't actually get rid of the thread, it just creates a bunch of locked threads in the middle of the page...

[+zhiVago]

Hi, there, Brando! Thank you for your comment!

Brando212, on 25 April 2012 - 06:09, said:

I'd like to see neowin have a rule about Necro Posts.

a necro post is when someone bumps a thread that is a set amount of time old (usually the poster is better off just creating a new thread)

a lot of forums I'm a member of have this rule and I think it is a good one

I've been seeing a lot of necro posts here on neowin lately, a lot of 2 to 3 year old threads being pointlessly bumped just because the person has a question that is "loosely" in line with what the thread was about

a good time set for a forum as big as nowin for what is considered a necro post i think would be ~6 months

what do you guys think, would it be worth it in the long run to add this rule?

Online communities differ and Neowin is a unique one

Some forums have lax topic rules. The others strive for a greater thread count (for marketing/profit reasons) so they implement a policy against "necro" posts.

And then there are the others who are very conservative about it and would rather favour bumps to necro posts than having multiple new threads on the same topic.

Neowin is sort of in the middle. There's already an unwritten rule against resurecting old threads here. However, it usually goes on a case-by-case basis.

[Neobond]

I agree with zhiVago, It is an unwritten rule, and one we didn't add because it doesn't get done often enough.

The people who bump old threads are usually spammers, and otherwise by members mainly because it's relevant to bump.

I bumped an old thread a couple of days ago "When threads collide" which hadn't been posted in for six months, in this case it was the right thing to do other than create a new thread, plus I don't see this as a huge problem. Such behavior can also be reported if a thread is incorrectly revived

[dnast]

I actually thought it was a rule to close old threads that have been bumped. I've seen it quite a bit over the years.

I'm glad there are exceptions, though. Like Neobond's example, there are sometimes cases where old threads should continue on even if they're old (IMO). It's been a while since I've checked out that thread, so I'll be headed there soon.

[+Xenosion]

I fear the day Neowin falls to a dictatorshipy frame of mind. Brando, what you're suggesting undermines the very meaning of being a free Neowinian.

[Singh400]

I wouldn't auto-lock them, just add a checkbox by default so if the thread is over 356 days old. Just make the user check a box that says "I realise that this thread is over 356 days old.".

[+Brando212]

Singh400, on 25 April 2012 - 15:31, said:

I wouldn't auto-lock them, just add a checkbox by default so if the thread is over 356 days old. Just make the user check a box that says "I realise that this thread is over 356 days old.".

this I like, just so the person is knowingly bumping the thread

[DirtyLarry]

TRC, on 25 April 2012 - 06:27, said:

I'll think it over and respond to this thread one year from now to let you know.

Great reply.

[+ShMaunder]

I wouldn't want such a rule.

I have in the past (maybe not here), bumped 2 year old threads because they top Google search results but don't have an adequate answer. That would be annoying if it tops Google but doesn't have an answer and is locked.

[Ently]

As long as an old post is bumped with information that adds to it and isn't just spam I don't see it as a problem. Occasionally I see old posts bumped here but usually it's because someone has something to add not something stupid to say.

[Charisma]

ShMaunder, on 25 April 2012 - 16:00, said:

I wouldn't want such a rule.

I have in the past (maybe not here), bumped 2 year old threads because they top Google search results but don't have an adequate answer. That would be annoying if it tops Google but doesn't have an answer and is locked.

Very good point, actually. Makes Neowin look better if the top result is something helpful and even current. I hate when I'm looking for answers and run into that exact scenario.

[RichardK]

I absolutely LOATHE the term "necro post". Whoever came up with it needs to be wiped from existence. It should be a permanent addition to the bad words filter.

Might as well just delete all posts older than whatever date you consider to be too old to post to, and get rid of the search feature altogether. It would save on server resources since searches are usually pretty resource intensive.

[Growled]

I also think it depends on the post. If the post adds something to the original thread then I think a bump might be a good thing. If it's just spam then by all means let's close it.

A good example might be a movie review. Instead of making a new post, say for a movie that's been out for a while, it seems to me to be meaningful to post in the original thread.