Reviving Old Threads: Why not?

The same people who nag about "bumping an old thread" will whine about posting your issue if it's been posted before and tell you to "use the search feature" as if you're retarded and can't see the gigantic search bar, which is completely useless unless the old thread gives a solution.

I don't seem to fully grasp this obnoxiously hypocritical and contradictory point of view. Maybe you can help me; what are we supposed to do if we have an issue previously posted by others that has gotten no answer? Take it elsewhere?

I think a lot of people skip over the threads that have hundreds or thousands of views, because we know/assume they are necro threads. A lot of times they are revived by a SPAMMER, or a 1 and done newcomer.

A fresh thread is much more likely to get responses to your, and only your issue.

When someone bumps a thread, it's usually their own, and it's not usually months or years old.

I don't know if this is everyone's view on it, but that's mainly how I see it.

We do ban, but it still revives the thread. We don't currently have IP banning.

We can't just move a post from an old thread, and create a new thread, using that post. It sounds nice, but we don't have that feature. This is where the person is usually advised to start a new one, if the situation calls for it.

When I see an old thread that has periodic updates, or legit suggestions/solutions, I let it go on for that reason. I've seen this mostly in our Computer Brand section, when dealing with an issue specific to the OEM model.

I will close threads that have been bumped because for one thing it's against the rules of etiquette that have been posted in every forum and it's also akin to queue jumping and what makes that thread anymore important than any of the other hundreds of threads that are in play at any one time. Dragging up old and inactive threads is even more annoying as for the most part the OP is either long gone or has completely forgotten about the thread and moved on.

It's an exposure issue then. I understand.

But it's a pretty common thing to see people find old threads with their issue and ask "so what did you end up doing?".

So mousemonkey, can you unlock my threads so I can update them with whatever solution ended up working? Then you can go ahead and close them.

Most of the time the "so what did you end up doing?" or "thanks XYZ, that worked for me too!" posts are made in threads that are half a decade old, some even in Usenet archives (I wish we'd burn them all).

I concur with everyone. There has been a fair amount of necro posts of late dating back to 8-9 years ago, which is absolutely outrageous, hence why we close them. More recent ones can and do stay open if there is a truly good answer to an issue that we would see as relatively common.

Cant we just make it so that closed threads get sent to the bottom of the Forum ? Mousemonkey closes solved threads over on the graphics section but that leaves us with pages of locked threads. Not complaining about that, its all that can be done from what i understand. How many pages are there on the server anyway ? Actually i just checked and there are posts on there at page 1000 from 2001.
Do we really need posts that old ? If threads that are say 1 month old with no reply get automatically locked and sent to the bottom of the pile along with closed/locked threads it would help to keep questions awaiting answers on the first few pages of the forums, also it would stop necro posting.

Mactronix

I 2nd that suggestion, if it were possible that would be great if the locked threads of this year, would at least be dropped to the beginning of the year, and why are we keeping threads all the way back to 2001, there is nothing from 2001 technologically relevant today, this forum is in serious need of an enema.