what's with all the old threads being resurrected?

<p>This has been happening a lot in the last few days.
How do you all feel about this? Would you rather see a new member start a new thread, even if it is on a familiar topic, or would you rather they search for old threads?
I know on some message boards I hang out at, people get yelled at for starting multiple threads on familiar recurring topics. Maybe some of our new posters feel they are following etiquette by searching for and resurrecting the old threads.
I would rather someone just start something new.<br>
Thoughts?</p>

<p>I think some of the old threads are interesting. If I am just interested in the latest posts, I just skip to the last page.</p>

<p>While some are interesting and have valuable advice if resurrected, it drives me crazy when people start posting to the OP 4-5 years after the original post. I think if an individual wants an answer to their specific question they should make a new post. If they want to add to a cumulative body of knowledge (like guaranteed merit aid listings) then posting to a continuing thread makes sense.</p>

<p>I think a lot of these posts are from new members who don't realize the post is old. Maybe they show up as unread posts like the newer ones do to us who visit frequently? If they are posting a response to a five year old thread, they must not realize how old it is.</p>

<p>Part of the difficulty is that while individual messages indicate the date that they were posted, that information isn't visible where the title of the thread appears in the forum. I've tried to train myself to look at the dates once I open a thread, but I don't always remember to do that.</p>

<p>There is a lot of institutional knowledge on those old posts - they are great. You may have a child rising into sophomore year and you have some questions. Most of those questions were the same for other folks a few years back. You can scroll through those threads and gather a lot of good scoop. It's like "What to Expect When You Are Expecting."</p>

<p>I don't mind if it's the OP giving us an update on their situation. It's interesting to see how things turn out. But, other than that, I could do without the old threads - sometimes I don't 'catch' the date until after I've read quite a bit of it and then realize it's not a current thread.</p>

<p>I actually don't mind resurrecting old threads, since sometimes there is valuable info in there that need not be repeated, BUT I think it is really helpful to mark it as an UPDATE so it is clear that it is a new issue.</p>

<p>I think the ones that are annoying are when a discussion/debate has been beaten to death a year ago and someone reopens it with a comment that is just more of the same. Like my "Safe Campus" thread.</p>

<p>Reading through 10 pages of a year old thread with no chance of interacting with anyone or directing the discussion in any way is probably at least as annoying as a new thread about a topic that was discussed a year ago, in my opinion.</p>

<p>Also some of these are actually advertisers pulling up an old topic to sell their product - don't forget to report any such suspicious activity.</p>

<p>^^^I could do without the threads that appear every few weeks that seemed designed to end in arguments about race and affirmative action. Talk about a topic that's been beaten to death!!!!</p>

<p>I've posted elsewhere that a thread I'm interested in that has 3,000 posts is just too intimidating. I'd much prefer people start a new thread, of course with a link to an old, relevant thread if that's appropriate. With very few exceptions (like LateToSchool), I hesitate to even click on a thread with more than about 5 pages of posts.</p>

<p>I have noticed that a lot.</p>

<p>
[quote]
^^^I could do without the threads that appear every few weeks that seemed designed to end in arguments about race and affirmative action. Talk about a topic that's been beaten to death!!!!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So you're saying that we should discriminate against old threads? Is that what you're saying? You, sir or madam, are an ageist!</p>

<p>All joking aside, resurrecting old threads might be because of the "Similar Threads" function at the bottom of the page. Right now, if I don't like the response I'm getting from this thread, I can click on one of the four threads suggested by CC (the earliest which is from 2006!) and raise that one from the dead.</p>

<p>Though there is great information in many of these resurrected threads, at the same time, I think that it makes it slightly more difficult for users' questions to be answered if they post on an old thread. I am not sure how many (though I bet a number do) go immediately to the latest post on the thread. Chances are, for a user to go straight to the latest post, they would have to recognize it as a resurrected thread, which might not always be the case. So, overall, I agree with you that it would be better to simply create a new thread.</p>

<p>What is your definition of old? One day, one week, one month, one year?
It depends on many factors. The relevance to the users of the site, how general the topic is, and whether there was recent activity on the post. Even if the person asking the question was answered two years ago, the information might be helpful to others.
If I were you, I'd leave your feelings out of it and not loose sleep over it. You will be ok. Besides, what diference it it going to make since you can't really do anything about it? It's like a sick cow. Sometimes you just have to shoot it.</p>

<p>Day of the walking dead threads? lol</p>

<p>I consider anything that hasn't been touched in over a month dead.</p>

<p>Perhaps there is something in the water OP?</p>

<p>Or, tractorfarmer, the information might be worthless and helpful to no one, especially if the "new" poster doesn't bother to read the entire thread before posting something that has been said 100 times in the prior 900 posts.</p>

<p>@MomWC: Each comment to agree or disagree helps to show support for the topic. Posting comments on CC doesn't require reading every comment others have contributed, especially if there are 900 posts. Many people would rather spend the time reading and responding to other topics. What would you recommend the age of a post to be before it is old, and should there be a limit on the number of responses? The site is like a reference. Maybe if someone new is interested in the particular topic, and they search for something they are interested in, they will take the time to read each and every comment. And just because someone is new to the site, doesn't mean they don't have knowledge or their personal opinions to add.</p>