Content Creation What's wrong with necroposting?

[Cedric]

GLOSSARY: "necroposting" refers to the act of reviving or replying to older forum threads, often long after they've fallen into dormancy.

So, what's wrong with necroposting? Well, it's a bit of a mixed bag, and opinions on the matter vary widely.

The Controversy:

1. Relevance: One common argument against necroposting is that resurrecting old threads can lead to outdated or irrelevant information resurfacing. This can confuse readers who stumble upon the thread looking for current information.
2. Spam and Bumping: Necroposting can sometimes be used to simply bump a thread to gain visibility, which can clutter the forum with unnecessary posts and divert attention from more recent discussions.

The Good:

1. Preserving Knowledge: Necroposting can serve as a valuable resource for forums where historical context or archived information is essential. In some cases, an old thread might contain timeless wisdom that's worth revisiting.
2. Continued Discussion: Reviving an old thread can also be a way to continue a valuable discussion that never received a satisfactory conclusion or to provide updated insights on a topic.

Forum Guidelines:

Ultimately, the acceptability of necroposting largely depends on the specific forum's rules and culture. Some forums encourage it within reason, while others have strict policies against it. It's crucial to understand and adhere to a forum's guidelines regarding necroposting to maintain a healthy community.

So, what's your take on necroposting? Do you see it as a nuisance or a valuable contribution to forum discussions? Share your thoughts and experiences with us. It's a topic that continues to stir debate, and your insights can shed light on the complexities of this controversial practice. Personally, I don't care for necroposting as long as it's relevant.

 

[Darth Cognus]

Anywhere that fusses about necros had better technically enforce that rule because otherwise demanding people do not necropost (relative as that can be) is silly to me imo. It's the most trivial thing to fuss about and I've seen people get very amped up over it and never understood why. But then I believe in a convention of updating OPs when necessary including potentially linking in a relevant post later. I like the thought of perhaps an automatic digest consisting of flagged later answers/highly rated posts which can deal with the relevance problem.

My position largely comes from happening across too many threads by search engine that have no way to be updated to be current. I'd rather that chance is there for me to browse to the last page and maybe find an answer, you can tell I'm thinking of support related threads here. But in general I prefer fewer, thorough threads that bounce up from time to time than the idea of 'oh just make a new one' after an arbitrary death date.

 

[Debashis]

I feel necroposting can be controversial due to outdated information resurfacing and spamming/bumping. However, it can also preserve knowledge and continue valuable discussions. Acceptability depends on forum rules. Personally, relevance is key.

 

[kolakube]

I've always been surprised when people get upset about bumping an old thread. I love to go back and see posts from "legendary" members and it's a good chance to get the full view of the history of the thread.

The alternative to necroposting is to have multiple threads about the same subject, which I wouldn't discourage either, but now makes it more tedious to get the full information the forum has to offer about the subject.

 

[an0nym0us]

I am in a forum that existed before Facebook and continues to survive because there are members who recycle the topics often so that they do not lose the importance and true value of the forum.

 

[Arantor]

I continue to be baffled that forums which don't want necroposts also don't lock multi-year-old threads and just be done with it.

 

[Jason]

I used to not care. However, now I think it's better to have fresh topics on the matter and if someone thinks they know something new, they can reference the locked thread on the new thread.

 

[Cory]

If there's a bunch of irrelevancy in the thread as a whole when it is necroposted, I would probably be inclined to close the thread due to it being so outdated. If it's a thread that's just a general question or a "list" thread like "List the last film you watched" then I usually don't mind it being necrobumped. Though most "list" threads like the one I speak of are usually pinned topics, but not always.

If people do necro post with something pretty foolish such as spam or trolling, then I would probably just delete the post.

 

[Ravenfreak]

I don't mind necroposting, if a post adds to the conversation or the information in the thread then it should be fine to post in a old thread. I'd rather people bump threads that are old than make duplicate threads. The only forum I'm on that used to enforce this rule more was Sonic Retro, but they are more lenient these days. When I first joined in 2008, you couldn't bump an old thread you had to start a new one.

 

[Senkusha]

I've always been surprised when people get upset about bumping an old thread. I love to go back and see posts from "legendary" members and it's a good chance to get the full view of the history of the thread.

The alternative to necroposting is to have multiple threads about the same subject, which I wouldn't discourage either, but now makes it more tedious to get the full information the forum has to offer about the subject.

I despise the alternative to Necroposting. I sometimes want to use the search feature on a forum, and when I'm looking for something, I'll get get bombarded with twenty posts about the similar thing. It's also a matter of sometimes the same information gets posted over and over again in new threads, that I think just continuing a post from eight years ago would avoid. However, with that being said, if you're bumping an eight year old post, I hope you've got something worthy to add, other that "This happened to me...."

I continue to be baffled that forums which don't want necroposts also don't lock multi-year-old threads and just be done with it.

Running into a forum by doing a Google search, registering, only to find that topic is locked because I wanted to add something is very frustrating to me, and as a result, I usually end up leaving said forum never to return. If they don't want topics to be resurrected, then they should also clearly mark the board as Archived or Read Only or even hidden from the general public.

 

[Arantor]

The problem with “I have the same problem” (but 5 years later) is that in reality you almost certainly do *not* have the same problem. You might have similar symptoms but in practice the resolution is unlikely to be the same, such that adding new material is often actually less helpful than you’d think - at least in a technical support context.

 

[Bluezone777]

In most cases, there is no problem but for some reason the staff team on some boards work to make problems out of thin air because apparently in their world there just isn't enough problems for them to solve so they go off and create them. I never ran a board in which this would have bothered me in the slightest and I don't ever recall ever seeing anyone bothered by it on any board I was a part of.

 

[Kyng]

For the most part, I'm fine with it, with a couple of caveats:

• Sometimes, a thread is very obviously not relevant any more (e.g. someone's intro thread from three years ago);
• Reviving old news threads can confuse members into thinking old news is new again (but even then, I'm fine with it if there's any new and relevant information to discuss).

Still, those cases make up a minority of gravedug threads - and, in the vast majority of cases, I think reviving old topics is completely fine .