# Picking up very old threads without good reason



## Ilmo

I happened to see a thread that was picked up after resting in peace for 15 months - by adding a post that did not bring actually anything new to the discussion. In my opinion, the discussion was not left "open" in any way in December 2005.

I think that only a phrase "Es practicamente lo mismo" (plus a link) is very poor addition to a thread, where already had been attained a mutual understanding, that there was no significant difference of meaning between two alternative words.

I know that there are no time limits - nor there should be - for this kind of abuse (if it is abuse?) of ancient threads, but considering the congestion of new threads that there is in some fora, wouldn't it be desirable to point out this detail, when our rules will be updated next time?


----------



## maxiogee

As we are positively encouraged to seek out existing threads, rahter than open a new one, I think it might be difficult to phrase a rule which would deter people from adding what some might see as 'a very poor addition'. The poster may see it as a positive contribution to what had been an important debate.


----------



## Etcetera

That's the problem. 
We're encouraged to search the Forums for old threads before opening new ones. Sometimes I do come across a thread on the very topic I wished to discuss, but this thread is so old that I simply don't know if I should add my "contribution" to it or it would be still better to start a new one. 
Sometimes I do answer in this old thread. But more often I close it and just give up the idea of discussing the issue.


----------



## Jana337

What Ilmo describes is mostly done by new members who are not aware of our community rituals and shared expectations. Most of those who stay with us quickly adjust. But useless dredging up is surely not rampant, is it? As Maxiogee and Etcetera kindly pointed out, any effort to stifle it (and I am skeptical new members would be responsive to any measures we could take) would backfire on us because we really want people to use the archives before asking.


----------



## fenixpollo

I don't think it's "abuse" to resurrect an old thread. In fact, it can be helpful.  For example....

*Expired threads* . . . . . *Digging up the dead*  . . . . .  *suggestion: tick for solved thread*

Cheers!


----------



## jonquiliser

Introducing a limit on threads would be to, at the same time, introducing a limit of the community; sort of 'new people not welcome to have their say, the rest of us have been all through that already'. I mean, lots of people have had their say, but new people might not. It's not just about 'accumulating data', it's about expressing your thoughts. And what's the harm? After all, old threads that you mightn't otherwise have realised exist, pop up and you realise that 'wow! that's interesting!'

...


----------



## TrentinaNE

It's kind of amusing when someone replies directly to the author of a message that was posted two years ago -- even when that author now sports "Banned" beneath his/her forum name.  

As a moderator, I don't see the point in resurrecting a very old thread by adding nothing more than "I agree" (or some variation thereof). However, if the previous discussion is incomplete and there is something to add in the way of clarification, or if there are questions about aspects of the prior discussion that weren't entirely clear, then by all means -- it's better than opening a redundant new thread on the same topic. 

Elisabetta


----------



## DearPrudence

TrentinaNE said:


> As a moderator, I don't see the point in resurrecting a very old thread by adding nothing more than "I agree" (or some variation thereof).


I agree 

 Seriously. It's amazing I have seen two threads with 2 forer@s who months after added:
- You could also say "bla bla bla", which had already been given, word for word, in the thread!

- And even worse, someone giving the very same sentence as the last post!  

I'll quite never understand that (unless it's actually what I'm doing right now ...  )


----------



## Etcetera

Yes, DearPrudence, I've seen this happening several times. And the poster is usually a newbie; I suppose they open the thread, read the question and run to answer it without reading the whole discussion. It's really frustrating!


----------

