Do you practice Thread Necromancy?

[Yaztromo]

I grew up believing it's good netiquette not opening double threads, so, before opening a new thread I often double check that there is no other thread discussing previously the same topic (the utilities of this forum are great under this point of view!). If it exists, I post there, rather than opening new threads.

For example, a very similar poll was run in the past: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?142327-Is-Thread-Necromancy-Ok

 

[Jhaelen]

I practice real necromancy.

Real necromancy is harmless. At least it doesn't harm anyone still alive...

I think thread necromancy _can_ be fine. But in most cases it happens unintentionally.

 

[Mercule]

No, but I just put a reminder on my calendar to raise this thread in a year.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I grew up believing it's good netiquette not opening double threads, so, before opening a new thread I often double check that there is no other thread discussing previously the same topic (the utilities of this forum are great under this point of view!). If it exists, I post there, rather than opening new threads.

I made this poll in jest. I do that a lot. But some seem to take this topic very seriously. And that's fine, too.

Your comment, however, reeks of self-righteous indignation as you defend your position for going out of your way to find these ancient threads as if you were doing some great kindness to the community. You're not doing anything wrong, of course. If threads weren't meant to be revived, they would be archived and locked away. But you seem blissfully ignorant of everyone else's opinions who view this action as somewhat distasteful, and would never willingly do it themselves. So your claims of etiquette appear to be self-imposed, or more likely putting a spin on something you just intend to keep doing anyway. Like I said, that's all well and good. I have no dog in this fight. But I don't think you'll win any sympathy with remarks like that.

Incidentally, all the answers are "Yes". We all do it, whether intentionally or not. It's not a big deal if we do. But it is uncommon to see a whole bunch come up at the same time because one person was actively doing so. And when you get half a page worth, it pushes the currently active topics of discussion way down and forces currently active participants to dig a lot deeper for them. And therein may lie the rub. So real etiquette might suggest "don't resurrect a bunch of old threads all at once"?

Anyway, I'm going back to poking fun at other things. And I fully expect this poll to be raised until the end of the internet!

 

[Eltab]

No.
But now & then I accidently respond to a thread someone else has dug up.

Me too.

+1 (and XP given above)

 

[Eltab]

I put a feature request in the Meta forum to indicate very old threads. Icon, red date stamp, whatever. Just to help avoiding propagating necro'd threads. I wouldn't want to hide them, there's a lot of useful old threads like guides and such.

Ideally, the new tag could be put on an old thread when "X amount of time since last post", rather than "X amount of time since OP"

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Your comment, however, reeks of self-righteous indignation as you defend your position for going out of your way to find these ancient threads as if you were doing some great kindness to the community. You're not doing anything wrong, of course. If threads weren't meant to be revived, they would be archived and locked away. But you seem blissfully ignorant of everyone else's opinions who view this action as somewhat distasteful, and would never willingly do it themselves. So your claims of etiquette appear to be self-imposed, or more likely putting a spin on something you just intend to keep doing anyway. Like I said, that's all well and good. I have no dog in this fight. But I don't think you'll win any sympathy with remarks like that.

I don't think the comment was intended in this way. I have seen on other forums cases where a poster has been chastised for starting a new thread about a topic that has been covered before, even though that thread has long-since been abandoned.

For those to whom thread necromancy seems like the wrong approach, can you say why you feel that way?

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I don't think the comment was intended in this way. I have seen on other forums cases where a poster has been chastised for starting a new thread about a topic that has been covered before, even though that thread has long-since been abandoned.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Only the poster can tell us for sure, assuming he's being honest about it. But he may not be aware how others perceive the comments, which I do feel can be construed that way. And while I don't think its a big breach in etiquette for the occasional or unintentional thread, I do think doing a bunch at once to crowd the front page--which is obviously the most active for current discussions--can be annoying, and thus considered rude.

Again, not my fight. But I find the whole thing humorous, in a way. Maybe playing devil's advocate this time could give both sides perspectives. Or earn me a serious verbal assault, if they're overly-defensive/sensitive about it. We shall see.

 

[Blue]

Ideally, the new tag could be put on an old thread when "X amount of time since last post", rather than "X amount of time since OP"

That would in no way address the issue for me. I don't go looking for old threads, I accidentally comment on old threads on the first page of the forums because I don't realize that others have Necro'd them. This would not give me any hint that they had been Necro'd. It would do absolutely nothing for me.

I already can tell when the last comment was - where is it int he forum? If it's on the first page or so then I now that it hasn't been two years ago.

 

[Iry]

Absolutely!

I consider Google searches to be pretty important, and that usually means keeping important information in a single thread so it can be easily found by Google. So I will absolutely revive an old thread if the information in it is still relevant. But if the information is completely outdated (like talking about game features that were patched out, etc), then I won't revive it.