How do you regard the NECROBUMPING of old threads on WP?

Post Reply New Topic

Good question.

Updating a thread about Pluto when that thread is only a couple months old is one thing.

But when you see someone trying to converse with previous posters when you know that none of the previous posters on that thread have been active in the last eight years is annoying (like watching someone talk to a wall).

So the short answer is that I don't like necrobumping.

But on the other hand certain topics keep reappearing. So sometimes it might seem economical to recycle threads.

IMHO there is something, well, romantic, about trying to converse with somebody separated by years in time- sorta like ships passing in the night.

I'm sending you some ice cream. <}}

...I NB'd a nine-year-old thread tonite so you can guess what I think ! !! !! !! !!
I knew it was old , though , I liked the specific topic PLUS its take on it (Obscure Oldies) and Naturalplastic has a nice last-parrygraff point and if youse/y'all don't want it done , the functions here shouldn't post links to old posts with the same subject/header words ! !! !! !! !!

It depends on what they're adding and how old the thread is.

If the thread is, say, 2 or more years old, then it's usually not okay.
If they're just saying, "Bump", then it's definitely not okay.
If they have a really useful, relevant post to make, then that's fine.

I agree. I don't think it is ever good to suppress information. It's the equal of banning or burning books.
The suppression is the result of aggressive memetics. It always boils down to one group trying to maintain some hierarchal status by controlling others.

How is it? Books are read only. Necrobumping is like writing in those books. I think of the old threads as books in a library - you can read them, but writing in them is disapproved of. New threads are like books being written I guess. That's sort of how I see it.

I don't think anyone necrobumps for a bad reason. Some people are just naive to the dates of posts and accidentally do it.

You can simplify the idea down to the difference between information storage and information sharing.
Once you read a book in the library you don't ask then to keep it in the basement from that point on so you don't have to ever see it again. But try to ignore the idea of the book. This is an issue of discussing ideas.

You compared it to books though.

Pretty much.

There are some very old threads on this forum where almost none of the original posters are still around and to bump those I think is pointless. Just create a new thread, don't bump something from like 2008.

If the topic is relevent to what is going on now, sure, why not.

This is Wrong Planet. Some of us *do* talk to walls because...we've personified the wall or we just happen to be facing the wall you think we're talking to...or maybe we just don't give a @#*&! that people think it's non-conforming that we're talking to a wall.

Personally, I really *like* it when an interesting conversation from the past is revitalized. So long as someone is not trying to have a conversation with the OP who is long gone, but in that case people can simply politely inform them of their mistake.

Age doesn't make the conversation any less valid or interesting, imo; it's the topic & thoughts that should matter. But maybe I'm just not that into the social part of the back and forth of conversations?

I don't mind it when they're making a point that is relevant, sometimes it's amusing that something from a few years ago is still relevant. I do however disagree with necrobumping for the sake of necrobumping and I'll echo the need to remove the 'Similar Topics' at the bottom of the page or stop it from showing threads that haven't been active for x months/years.

It's a bit like raising zombies from the dead to me...

I necrobumped a couple of threads back when I was new and didn't know the rules. Now, I usually don't like it, at least when it's a thread I want to post in, because I want to post in the thread but feel like I'm not supposed to.