What the hell is it with all the thread resurrection lately?
 

Mods, can you turn off posting to threads over, say a year old?

I've asked for that many times... it's never gonna happen...

right on!

By the way,
Could you recommend a comfortable saddle for me?

Ah, oh well, was worth a shot I guess...

I'm going to wait a year, then post again to this thread. Just watch.

I am a level 80 priest after all. Don't act like you're not impressed.

Classic! I just set a reminder in Outlook to do the same on 9/12/2010! Even included the URL to make finding it easier. :D

Well, we keep telling people to use the search engine instead of starting new threads. So when they do find a thread by searching, and it doesn't answer exactly what they want to know, or they just want to add their 2 cents....it's resurrection time, baby.

+1

Absolutely nothing wrong with resurrecting old threads ... they're often much more interesting than the new ones!!

Sometimes it's fine and sometimes it's stupid.

Which covers just about any thread posted old or new.:D

The fine to stupid ratio is probably 1 to 10 -- very competitive with the new threads...

Not in my bag of "tools". Not a bad idea though if there was a way to make threads over one year old read only. One big downside I see would be the number of members questioning why they can't post to a certain thread not realizing the thread is that old or just not knowing that we had a one year rule in place.
With that said......moving this thread to where it belongs.......Forum Suggestions & User Assistance

Maybe a better idea would be to set up a tool where BFer's who suffer from this "problem" could activate a feature that would prevent any thread with content over a year old from sullying their screen and upsetting their equilibrium.

Search query- " What the hell is it with all the thread resurrection lately?"

Result- This Thread.

Not sure what the issue is with old threads or why every recurring issue should be posted on a new one.

Granted, waking up old ones is sometimes a way of screwing around, but if people respond to an old thread, it indicates that the issue hasn't really changed (i.e. the thread is still relevant) or possibly that there is more to add to it.

For example, in the first 6 hours after it was resurrected, the tire replacing thread at http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=2136 generated more more than triple the number of serious replies than the original thread did. Obviously, the issue is interesting to a number of members.

In any case, what's the harm in waking these things up? It's not like it happens very often, causes problems, or that all the new threads are so relevant anyway. Perhaps the instructions for the site should indicate that people should ignore threads they find uninteresting.

You're the main culprit recently, so maybe you can explain the purpose. Is the OP even still a member ? Does the OP still have the question ? Let them repost if they care.

Old threads get replies because we don't all notice how old they are and think there's a current OP with a question .... waste of time as far as I'm concerned.

The OP is not the only person who benefits from a new thread. Many people read them and learn from them. I personally have no problem with old threads coming back. A lot of times it is done because something was mentioned in the thread and never fully cleared up. It makes sense to continue the discussion from there instead of a new thread.

Perhaps there'd be an option to request opening an old thread when applicable .

This same topic has been covered many times before. Use the Search function before posting things like this.

And comment on the old posts you searched and irritate So Cal folks and you make this suggestion again. It's a vicious cycle. vi-cycle??

I disagree with that premise. It's like asking a question in a lecture......your question may be running through 25 other peoples mind at the same time, and they are afraid to ask for some reason. The occasional thread ressurection is a good thing also, because it also supplies all those older answers again. It does no harm, and doesn't negatively affect page views, so no foul.

What's wrong with posting to old threads, and why is it worse than starting a new thread on a topic already covered?

If a resurrected thread dies from lack of intersted it will quickly fall off the first page quickly, then go back into the archives. I've read some good information that I probably wouldn't have stumbled upon otherwise if it wasn't resurrected.

What's funny is when some (including me) reply to previous posts over 2 yrs ago in a resurrected thread, when only a few new comments have been made. The only thing to suggest might be to flag the thread with an icon to indicate that it is over a year old and being brought back to life.