Resurrecting old threads?

[ProfJohnL]

The forum has policy of not resurrecting old threads, yet we often see old threads being reopened usually by brand new correspondents, who have either not read the form's rules, or not understood them or are trying to deliberately pull a fast one or a scam. Regardless of the individuals reasons, it often requires one of our moderators to intervene and lock the thread to new posts.

Might I suggest the Forum techies look to see if there is any way that threads not posted too for more than whatever period is deemed reasonable are automatically locked with screen message to inform the viewer to consider opening a new thread, thus preventing old threads from being resurrected.

 

[Jcloughie]

How old is old?

I resurrected an ‘old’ thread recently. It was about 10 months old. I was posting about car insurance renewal and I remembered there was an existing thread. The logic I used was by updating it I maintained context.

Is ‘old’ relative to the content?

I have noticed very old threads being resurrected and often with no logic. Particularly when someone is offering advice to an OP from years ago who has not been active since. But it does not happen often. I think it tends to be from members who are not very familiar with how forums operate.

John

 

[Hutch]

One point is that a NON forum member Does a Google search for say, Tyron bands, the search might come back with responses from Tyron, C&CC, Practical Caravans , etc. so they read the forum and respond, not knowing the forum rules about old threads. Myself I don't mind them being resurrected, as that person might just want the one answer.

 

[Beardy]

One point is that a NON forum member Does a Google search for say, Tyron bands, the search might come back with responses from Tyron, C&CC, Practical Caravans , etc. so they read the forum and respond, not knowing the forum rules about old threads. Myself I don't mind them being resurrected, as that person might just want the one answer.

Can non forum members respond to posts? I didn't think that they could.
I agree that resurrecting old threads isn't a big issue. Is it better to have an old thread resurrected or two separate threads on the same subject? I'd plump for the old thread and keep all relevant information together rather than spread it across multiple threads.

 

[otherclive]

Can non forum members respond to posts? I didn't think that they could.
I agree that resurrecting old threads isn't a big issue. Is it better to have an old thread resurrected or two separate threads on the same subject? I'd plump for the old thread and keep all relevant information together rather than spread it across multiple threads.

Non members cannot respond to Forum posts.

 

[Hutch]

Sorry folks I typed the message wrongly,
I meant they searched for a problem , then seeing it joined the forum and then posted.

 

[Sam Vimes]

As far as I can see there's nothing in the guidelines that indicates old threads shouldn't be opened.

Personally I lock some for a few reasons. Mel, may have other reasons.

1. Contributors to old threads may no longer wish to receive notifications about issues that have been overtaken by events. More significantly some members on the thread may have passed away but the email address is still active or shared by another family member - a notification could cause some distress if received.

2. Information on very old threads is often outdated or again overtaken by events. Further having to go through a long post I've never seen before to ensure it still conforms to the guidelines is tedious and I don't have the time to read everything, especially if its been inactive for a long while and I've forgotten what it was about.

3. I try to not get uptight about some things - we all make mistakes, and time is precious as you get older - but I do find it a little irritating that folks can't start a new thread and just tag their posts on the end of a very old one. If you don't know how to start a new thread just ask - as someone has just done recently.

4. I can't remember what #4 is.