To necro or not to necro, that is the question

[Artemiz]

One aspect of forums I've never understood is when its acceptable to necro a thread or not.

One the one hand, most forums have a rule about searching for similar topics before starting a new thread, and if someone has the audacity to ask a question that's been asked before the forum mafia will show up to complain about how it's been discussed already.

However, if someone does search for a topic, then makes a post on it, the forum mafia will show up to complain about necro bumping as well.

What exactly are people supposed to do?

[Jin-]

Most of the necroing here are one person's doing. It's the character of him, you know.

Depends, imo it's OK to pull up the thread from the same year or close. But pulling up some thread from 2015 is not.

[SilverObi]

If you have something to contribute to an old topic besides a generic bump then I imagine most folks wouldn't mind, and in fact is a good way to get a genuine new feel for the topic after time has passed. What the necro posters are doing however is just posting something vapid or barely relatable to the topic then not touching it again, just to flood the front page with topics that clearly ran their course.

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

One aspect of forums I've never understood is when its acceptable to necro a thread or not.

One the one hand, most forums have a rule about searching for similar topics before starting a new thread, and if someone has the audacity to ask a question that's been asked before the forum mafia will show up to complain about how it's been discussed already.

However, if someone does search for a topic, then makes a post on it, the forum mafia will show up to complain about necro bumping as well.

What exactly are people supposed to do?

Well, in most cases the one bumping an old thread is just doing it to flood the front page with old bumped threads, adding no meaningful discussion to the thread itself.

Bumping an old thread here is preferred over starting a new one IF there is still discussion to be had and its not just a bump for bumps sake.

[WhiteArchmage]

Examples:

Necroing a 4 year old thread about requesting new emotes adding another request or supporting an old request for an emote that hasn't been implemented? A-OK.

Necroing a 4-year old thread about a divisive topic (say, playable children) with a random line about "I don't see what's so bad about it." Liiiiikely a troll.

[Drakonic]

Most of the necroing here are one person's doing. It's the character of him, you know.

Depends, imo it's OK to pull up the thread from the same year or close. But pulling up some thread from 2015 is not.

They're a real player whether you like it or not. Gods know why they're doing it though.

[ItMe]

Necro if you have something to add.
Very few threads are actually fully discussed closed topics, but posting on a conversation that has wound down (or addressed OP's question) without adding anything is no bueno.

[ICountFrom0]

Most of the necroing here are one person's doing. It's the character of him, you know.

Depends, imo it's OK to pull up the thread from the same year or close. But pulling up some thread from 2015 is not.

And why not, if the post from 2015 actually has accurate information?

[linayar]

Bumping an old thread here is preferred over starting a new one IF there is still discussion to be had and its not just a bump for bumps sake.

The problem is that people may disagree about if there is still a discussion to be had. There are topics that would just repeat itself, and people continue to discuss them.

I'd say reuse a thread regardless. If there's no discussion to be had, then there's no need to post a response. Meanwhile, new members to the forum can read the historical discussions. It's a good thing in my opinion regardless of any trolling intentions.

[Avatre]

And why not, if the post from 2015 actually has accurate information?

Because 9/10 the information in the thread being necroed is outdated, and the person who does the necro adds nothing of value(replies with a "joke" that adds nothing to the conversation or states a controversial topic to NEVER respond in there again)