Necroposting

[MMM]

I attacked the merits of your argument, not the structure of your sentences.

If you don't think making pointless posts is pointless because someone MIGHT come along and follow up with something substantial, that is your right. I disagree with that, and that is why I made my first post: in an effort to reduce pointless posts, especially on threads that have been inactive for months or longer.

There really isn't much more I can say on the matter.

[NanteNa]

Ahh jeez, here we go again. -_-''


MMM is not saying that necroposting is COMPLETELY evil. He's just saying that there is no need to revive a dead thread if you have nothing reasonable to add to it's discussion.

[ThirdSight]

Sweet Jesus nublits.

Either take it to PM you two or shut up entirely about the issue. No offense to either of your mental capacities, because I've seen they're both rather large, but you're making fools out of yourselves by arguing over the internet about bringing dead threads back to life.

Shut it.

[pumpum]

wow i thought the name of this thread meant something ttttttooooootttally different lol !! not on jf surely?? hehe !

[burkhartdesu]

It's so ironic that this thread was created to get rid of useless threads when this is in fact the perfect example.

The only thing worse than the "OMG I KNOW" or "i agree" posts are these egotrip arguments.

[iPhantom]

Originally Posted by JoshAussie

Can you please tell me what the differance is between a thread thats been active for a year and a thread thats been "dead" for a year?

Nothing. Unless the thread itself was only relevant to the OP there is absolutely no harm whatsoever in replying, even if it has been a year since the thread was last on the main page.

Yeah there is a difference. When a post is dead it became so because nobody posted in it anymore, lost interest or it is outdated.

I think you're referring only to threads which the point is to argue with each other. That's a special case, do not include every type of thread.

AND, we're not saying to post on a dead topic is bad, we're saying necroposting on it with the intention of OTHER people to post there is plain pointless... why would someone need others to make a thread active if he can't make it himself. For just seeing that thread be active?

You only see it the way you want it. You think it helps other people (which can share a good opinion) to post on older (but revived threads), but increases the number of these necroposters aka useless members. We don't need useless members with 1000 "OMG, I agree" posts. It drops down the quality of the forum.

[Aniki]

Originally Posted by MMM

If you don't think making pointless posts is pointless because someone might come along and follow up with something substantial, that is your right. I disagree with that, and that is why I made my first post: in an effort to reduce pointless posts, especially on threads that have been inactive for months or longer.

And this where our argument comes to an end. We both have different opinions on this matter, and we both cling to them. You disagree with me, and disagree with you.
I just don't see your points strong enough on to change my point of view. This necroposting with pointless posts isn't a big problem as it seems.

Originally Posted by iPhantom

By your way of thinking, we need members who only necropost and contribute none of their opinions to the community... just to go around and bump old threads because they like to. Those threads became inactive for a reason, if someone is so interested to share his argument and revive it yea, but in no way should someone bump a topic and WAIT for others opinions... I don't get the point in all this.

Stop making things up!
I never said we NEED members to necropost dead threads, and it's only your guess on why people necropost threads. And even, IF somebody's intention of necroposting was just to wait for others opinions, will it kill you if you open a revived thread and nothing useful to you, will the forum crash because of that? no, either you'll:
1) just make another irreverent post which has nothing to do with the topic.
2) just post flaming that person for necroposting the which is also irrelevant,
3) just ignore it and move on,
4) if the topic is interests you, you'll contribute by posting something interesting and NOT pointless.

And like noodle said:

Originally Posted by noodle

If however it isn't interesting, then it just... dies again! I don't see the harm?!

[iPhantom]

Originally Posted by Aniki

Stop making things up!
I never said we NEED members to necropost dead threads, and it's only your guess on why people necropost threads. And even, IF somebody's intention of necroposting was just to wait for others opinions, will it kill you if you open a revived thread and nothing useful to you, will the forum crash because of that? no, either you'll:
1) just make another irreverent post which has nothing to do with the topic.
2) just post flaming that person for necroposting the which is also irrelevant,
3) just ignore it and move on,
4) if the topic is interests you, you'll contribute by posting something interesting and NOT pointless.

I'm not making things up. Your way leads us to get lots of necroposters because of allowing them, thus adding more pointless posts to a debating thread.

Noodle's example is wrong. We should let SPAM because people ignore it and it dies? Necroposting is a weak form of SPAM. How many necroposters here even thought about the next person's opinion? They just add it either to increase their post count, or to let us know they agree with someone. That's pointless.

Example on an old thread:

A guy's opinion, debate or whatever is here

If it was a new thread I would just post 'I agree', there is no problem. If I were to post on an old topic I wouldn't quote him at all but since I agree with him I would share my opinion (same as him) and why. I don't think those necroposters have time to explain why they agree, they just want to increase post count.

This way you REVIVE the thread for others and PUT A VALID ARGUE for your opinion. Hell, 5 straight necroposters could revive a thread saying I agree citing only one guy.

Reviving an old post VIA necroposting is a bad habit and should be stopped. revive it with an argument, it's fine.

[HaruHotaru]

Originally Posted by noodle

...I see the front page, if the thread interests me, then I reply! The same thing will happen if a thread is revived! It will be seen by people, if anyone has an opinion, they will reply, if noone has an opinion, it will die again. At most, it will take up the front page for a couple of hours. Where is the harm in that?

When I visit a Forum, I do the same thing. I have revived a dead post before, inputting my view point on the matter (especially if it is a different view from what was already posted) and that did indeed revive the thread, as if it never stopped. The topic itself is what "lives" on, despite the original date of the first post.

There have been times when I've started a thread that recieved a handful of replies, but then went silent... and honestly, I hoped inside that at some time, other Forum members (especially newly-registered ones) would run by my old "dead" thread and add their thoughts... even if I started the thread weeks/months ago because of the importance of the topic.

[iPhantom]

Originally Posted by HaruHotaru

When I visit a Forum, I do the same thing. I have revived a dead post before, inputting my view point on the matter (especially if it is a different view from what was already posted) and that did indeed revive the thread, as if it never stopped. The topic itself is what "lives" on, despite the original date of the first post.

There have been times when I've started a thread that recieved a handful of replies, but then went silent... and honestly, I hoped inside that at some time, other Forum members (especially newly-registered ones) would run by my old "dead" thread and add their thoughts... even if I started the thread weeks/months ago because of the importance of the topic.

Right. Necroposting does nothing of that, does NOT inputs view points, does NOT adds thoughts.

You're not saying to revive threads via necroposting. It's a bit different from what noodle tried to say.