It’d be awesome if Discourse supported a warning like this. Twice today I invested several minutes in threads where the most recent poster was responding to a year-plus old thread. Yes, I should have paid more attention but people really should be careful (refrain?) from posting responses, especially on year old threads where the original post related to a time sensitive issue or meal choice. Yes, I know there are bigger problems in life and some issues and questions are evergreen. Just an observation/site feature request.
A lot of threads still have good information, and responding may give insight to others. I’ve found threads on here from 2016 that are still being talked about and if anything just the information from them has been helpful to me! Now there are some threads that have no responses or information in them persay that could be cleaned up and removed but isn’t really that much of an issue.
I will wait at least a year after this to necro this thread.
I have a cache of Necropost memes, which I will attempt to not use here.
The forum is still pretty new, and I agree with @monsterjuice can help newcomers. Who can’t seem to find the search bar. Actually, in the dark theme, that magnifying glass is pretty darn dark!
Okay, we’re not supposed to necro threads, but we’re supposed to search old threads for info/topics we want to know about. What, the last post on a thread from 2 years ago is really the last word on a subject? Or am I missing something?
This is not about Keto Forums specifically; I just don’t understand the Internet-wide objection to necroing.
Let the necroing commence!
Sorry @OldDoug, I couldn’t wait as long as you.
If a thread hasn’t been commented on, in quite awhile (I don’t know the exact time) it will post a warning to the right of you message in the edit field.
Apparently 3 1/2 months is not enough, because I didn’t get this warning when I started typing this. Had to go find an older thread.
It’s just up to the user to pay attention to the warning message or not.
I would say, Laurie, if you’ve searched the forum for a particular answer, but didn’t find it, then you could start a new thread with your question.
Problem is, a lot of people start a thread without even searching for the answer, first.
As far as necroing a thread, the only issue I see with this is if someone stopped tracking that thread, or even muted it, then they wouldn’t see the update to it.
Best to start anew and see if there are any fresh ideas out there. You might even mention, “I’ve searched…I found this…but still doesn’t answer my question.”
Just some thoughts.
There are conflicts here. Questions posed even in years past may be answered by the appearance of new information/research, and value may be had in the context of pre-existing threads. Then there is the possibility that some people may not see the new stuff since they’ve selected against it.
I don’t think anyone reads the warnings to the right. Not prominent enough. I know someone is going to come by and refute my saying “I read it though!”. Great! Now, get the other thousands of people to do that.
In that case Doug I usually link to the old post and then highlight new insights. This allows people new to the argument the background information some of us others have.
Good approach, Mark - - gentleman and scholar.
I guess that’s what I meant by this statement, just not worded very well.
It’s a balance.
On the one hand, I belong to a rat forum that strongly discourages reviving old threads. Part of the reasoning is that people can get worked up trying to assist in an “emergency,” only to realize that the problem occurred years ago. If someone wants to bring up an old thread, it’s considered good form to link to it in a new thread.
On the other hand, I belong to a stove forum that doesn’t mind reviving old threads, because the problems and their answers don’t really change from year to year. Personally, I find those “zombie” threads annoying, and have to remind myself always to check the original post date.
I really don’t know where the balance should be, in this community. I don’t believe, however, that anyone would complain about a new thread that starts out with a reference to an older thread. Remember that the system can do this for you, if you click on the link symbol at the bottom of the latest post and then select “Start a new topic.”
If older threads were causing any harm, such as eating up needed resources, etc. I don’t see the harm in leaving them? Yeah, the poster should pay attention to a dated post, but that’s not a necessity either really. … I actually read a entire thread just the other day about coffee that I found interesting, and that one was 2 years old. But it provided me with some info I wasn’t aware of. … So if the data is pertinent to someone else down the road, what’s the harm? And if someone happens to post a new question in it? It could indeed resurrect it, and if not, no harm.
I do like the mention of those threads that don’t really get any responses though. I could see those being cleared up if needed. (At least more-so than threads with some good information in them)
Our new guidelines specifically say you should comment on existing threads and not start new ones, so if someone necros an old thread, they are just following the rules.
At first I thought this was slang for a forum in a particular state of organization. Then I realized you were being literal. Rats!
So, when I read this, I thought, “They have a forum for EVERYTHING.”
Have you ever been reading an old thread, and come across one of your own comments?
Excellent point, John!
It’s like keto, we got to keep tweaking it, until we get it right.
I wlll let you know what I think about this in about a year.
I think that’s exactly what we’re asking for!