Necromancy (a rant of sorts)

[Watcher]

So on another forum we had a pretty severe resurrection of a thread, and I thought I'd share it here for entertainment and to pick your brain.

Necromancy of old, deceased topics is ok in a lot of ways.  We see it here, old project threads being dug up and reanimated with questions about the build, old problem threads being piggybacked on, old products being looked for now-a-days...

But what about an answered question?  What about an answered question that's a few years old?  What about and answered question that's SIX years old?


Someone wanted a key copy 6 years ago and wanted to know if he had to dealership, order a blank online and locksmith it, or just go to a locksmith for the key and service.
Several people responded with all appropriate answers and the thread dies sometime late 2010.
Along comes a man with too much time on his hands and a shovel, goes digging through the archive, and decides his word is better than that of the honored dead and merely repeats to get a blank on eBay and locksmith it...

And the forum goes wild.



How the hell did this happen?  Why the hell would someone post in a 6 year old ANSWERED thread?  With no new information or questions?
How did they even get that deep?  You would need to go playing a historian on a forum, 6 year old threads aren't on page 4.  Did he click "go to page" and type in "150" and click on the first one that caught his eye?
Did he purposely search for a thread about keys for some reason and one of the early results happened to be that aging post?

... Is he just a massive troll?




Perhaps the best question is, why does it upset me so much?

[ShowBizWolf]

I have been on a fair amount of message boards over the years and I never understood why people got THAT MAD sometimes over old threads.

The only thing I could think of is... if it's a forum that has a billion members and constant new threads and posts where it's hard to keep up with then ok, throwing a zombie in the mix I guess wouldn't be very good but... idk it doesn't warrant that kind of anger. Maybe if it's specifically stated in the rules and people don't read it or pay attention to it? Oh dear, is that the rule on here?   

Well anyway, on GSTwin for example, I'm really happy when someone digs up an old thread. I check the forum daily (it's rare I don't at least pop in for a moment) mainly because I just keep it open on the work computer... and when I'm bored I'll go back through old threads because I'm really interested in what this forum has to offer. I have learned a LOT from searching, reading, etc on here and sometimes I'll find something old that I want the current people on the forum to maybe add input to.

Last thought I have is you know... when I'm in a search for something... wanting to solve a problem etc... I'd rather find a huge thread that's been added to over the years with tons of input etc rather than a handful of threads with only 1 or 2 or 3 posts in it, trying to see if anything is helpful/valuable.

[Bluesmudge]

I also don't mind old threads coming up.

Posts that add very little are usually because someone was searching for something specific, didn't realize the search was by "relevance" instead of "newest first" and assumed they were posting in a semi-recent thread. Its an honest mistake and hurts nobody.

Considering most threads on this forum have some good information, we might actually benefit from seeing some of the older content. Some of the writers of the originals posts might still be around to add to what they said years ago. I still get occasional emails with questions about pictures I posted in 2009.

Part of a person's tolerance to old posts may have to do with how long you have been on the forum. I've been a member since 2008 and I know I put the most value on posts made since then. Pre-2008 doesn't feel like the forum I know, except maybe when I see posts by members I recognize. Considering how insignificant necroposting is, in the grand scheme of things, you have to ask yourself why you care so much.

Don't look now, someone just revived a thread from 2003 in the general discussion area!

[Watcher]

I'm not on the whole against necromancy if it contributes to discussion.

But my thing is if I am searching for info and find it deep in the bowels, I'll be satisfied with my answer and move on.  I won't resurrect that thread with a "Thanks person who may or may not still exist, it's exactly what I was looking for!"

If I find a conversational thread from 5 years ago I'm assuming the people in that conversation have long since moved on.

If I find an unanswered question from 2007, I won't answer it, that user is probably long gone or long since solved it on their own.

While you could say reviving old threads is less wasteful and creates less clutter than having a bunch of fresh topics asking the same questions, if a user does a decent search ahead of time they very well may not have to post at all.  So that's less a matter of forum etiquette and more a matter of lazy members.


I dunno, I've been on a load of different forums over the years and moderated a couple and it seemed a general unwritten rule that you don't necro old posts if theres nothing relevant to add or you just want to talk about it.
Legitimate pertinent questions, yes, go ahead and revive.  Something like a gallery or a "random thoughts" kind of topic, why not?

...  Helping a guy from 6 years ago get a key made when something like 8 people already beat you to the punch?  And he might not even be a visiting member anymore?  And he might not even have that vehicle anymore?
It's ADDING clutter to page one when there doesn't need to be...
The only thing of value anyone got out of that was the dude's post count went up by one.

[MichaelM3]

I've been reading of late about the 'half-life' of facts. It seems that about half of what we believe to be facts today will be proved wrong in ten years.

Maybe this accounts for some of the dead-thread resurrections. Granted, it doesn't account in any way for the example used to start this thread.

Maybe it would be a fun exercise to rummage through some old, dead, solved, answered threads to see if there are 'facts' that have reached their use-by date.

The only one that instantly comes to mind was the 'fact' that WD40 was a good thing to use on chains. In the bicycle world using WD40 was considered an appropriate practice 15 years ago. Now, not so much.

When the resurrection actually adds new information or insight - I'm all for it.

[ShowBizWolf]

But my thing is if I am searching for info and find it deep in the bowels, I'll be satisfied with my answer and move on.  I won't resurrect that thread with a "Thanks person who may or may not still exist, it's exactly what I was looking for!"

If I find an unanswered question from 2007, I won't answer it, that user is probably long gone or long since solved it on their own.

...  Helping a guy from 6 years ago get a key made when something like 8 people already beat you to the punch?

I like this stuff right here ^^

You are right IMO, there's not a super good reason to reply to the thread just to say thank you... maybe if you really wanted to throw that good karma out into the world then try a PM but not bring up the whole thread.

An old thread with an unanswered question well maybe I would be tempted to reply to it IF I was able to come up with the solution/answer OR reply with a link to a thread that does solve the problem. I'd do this because if someone is searching and read through the thread only to get to the end with no solution... well that sucks. But if they read thru and find the solution then hopefully that prevents them from starting a new thread on a beat-to-death topic.

I think maybe the reason that some people DO make new threads about stuff that has already been covered on here is because maybe sometimes they get frustrated... say their search turned up 10 threads and they read through the first 5 and they are all unanswered/unresolved. I am guessing that most people get frustrated (because they probably already are, having a problem with their bike to start with) and they just wanna post to get a fresh and quick answer.

But yes, finding an old thread where a bunch of people have already replied with solutions and that person hasn't been active in years... there's really no reason (I can think of right now) to bump it up or reply. Except maybe to see what the current peeps on the forum have to say about the subject. 

[Watcher]

The only one that instantly comes to mind was the 'fact' that WD40 was a good thing to use on chains. In the bicycle world using WD40 was considered an appropriate practice 15 years ago. Now, not so much.

The reason WD40 "works" on bike chains is that they're simple metal link chains.  Motorcycle o-ring or x-ring chains get eaten up by it.
I was always taught to use WD-40 as less of a lubricant and more of a cleaner for metal.
I'll "oil" a door hinge with it, but that's about it.  More commonly I clean chains with it, use it to sharpen knives, use it as a sanding medium, or wipe it on bare surfaces to inhibit rust...

[mr72]

WD-40 is a solvent.

It was never a good practice on bicycle chains, not now and not 15 years ago and not 50 years ago. It was only accepted because it was a common household item that kids had access to that would make their bicycle chain stop squeaking, but the kids didn't have to know anything about it's quality as a lubricant or really whether it would hold up for thousands of miles of use.

Somewhere I bet I can find a really, really old topic on this forum that mentions this and I can reply to it with a thumbs-up.

[yamahonkawazuki]

was thinking umm wtf? after reading title "necromancy" and knowing what it means. BUT ive resurrected threads often mostly solved. but mainly for reminiscing. and to keep it from falling of the edge into nothingness. my first thread from june 2003 is long gone. i found the 2nd one though. but that is why id do it. or id bump threads from members who've passed. again mainly for reminiscing. but often for those having problems this thread would solve.
Aaron

[Janx101]

https://youtu.be/gS4u3P2nFfg

[yamahonkawazuki]

lovve that song lol. that one and lady.
yes that dates me. well i was 3yo but it was still being played on radios in chicago area in my childhood.
Aaron

[Kijona]

My guess is the guy found it doing some Google-fu; probably didn't realize the thread was "well seasoned". For these instances I prefer to use Hanlon's razor:

"Never attribute malice to that which can be easily explained by stupidity."

[Watcher]

For these instances I prefer to use Hanlon's razor:

"Never attribute malice to that which can be easily explained by stupidity."

I like this.


But then the real mystery was whether or not this was ignorance or something more.

[Kijona]

We'll probably never know. GSTwins is the only forum I post to or even look at anymore. It seems like the majority of other forums (regardless of subject matter) are either so small that they're ghost towns; or, they're bloated with people text-crapping all over each other.