Public Trash Can: fed with derail - nonsense posts

Artic_Wagon · **Joined:** Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:00 pm **Posts:** 4093

Incredible way of future transportation-Straddling Bus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv8_W2PA0rQ

The D'ni had their water transportation !

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Artic_Wagon · **Joined:** Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:00 pm **Posts:** 4093

Yep strange indeed between a song and maybe the next president of USA and one of his dream. :lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw_QJ8hliIc

P.S. There is something else related to the same election hidden in there but I will let you discover it. :wink:

Annabelle · **Posted:** Thu Jun 09, 2016 5:48 am

Hello everyone,

I was wondering, what's the meaning behind: "Zombie Thread Necro"?

Thanks!

korovev · **Posted:** Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:03 am

It means that an old post has been raised from the dead :mrgreen:

It’s considered good netiquette to let dead posts rest in peace and give life to new ones.

Tai'lahr · **Posted:** Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:59 pm

I'm not sure it was warranted in the case of the Obduction thread which is less than a year old and the longest lapse between posts was only three months (but, maybe that's the limit, who knows?).

But, for the 14 PURPLE lights thread, it had been four years since the last post and the poster who resurrected it should have started a new thread and included a link to the old one for reference.

But, that's just my opinion; I haven't actually researched the forum rules for this particular post. Shocking, yes, I know. :wink:

JWPlatt · **Posted:** Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:06 pm

Annabelle wrote:

I was wondering, what's the meaning behind: "Zombie Thread Necro"?

aka thread necromancy.

I don't see much point in spending time on administering this particular rule against it.

Mac_Fife · **Posted:** Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:36 pm

Tai'lahr wrote:

But, that's just my opinion; I haven't actually researched the forum rules for this particular post. Shocking, yes, I know. :wink:

There's isn't actually a rule to research - as korovev says, it's more "netiquette" and where the breakpoint is varies across forums.
Personally, I'm inclined to think context matters: For most things, starting a new thread and referencing the old one is the right thing to do, but - and for me this mainly applies to "technical" threads - new information on an old but ongoing issue is best added to the original thread. Having said that, if it's very old then the old information may no longer be relevant anyway.

Annabelle · **Posted:** Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:08 pm

Thank you everyone for your quick answers :mrgreen:

I don't want to address the validity of the rule, I was only curious.

Nev'yn · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:09 am

Like others said, it's more a custom of whatever forums you're reading.

@GoMe, for instance, we tend to be very lax on this and restart conversations whenever.
@GoW, in contrast, tends to be very more "create new thread, reference old thread" in practice

Neither is good or bad, but really more of a conversational style issue. Main reason I think we restart threads @GoMe a bit more than others, is because we are very strong in "institutional memory", dating back to Marten's time as GM.

Anys, enough Messenger mumblings from me....

(/salute)

korovev · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2016 10:32 am

Wasn’t it also a technical issue, i.e. old threads are archived by the forum software, and adding a new post means the archived thread has to be extracted again, which for some reason should be avoided?

Mac_Fife · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2016 3:35 pm

That could be the case on some systems that have a hierarchical storage scheme (my office network is like that), but not here. Often it's just that when an old thread reappears at the top of the topic listings people don't check the date and read the entire thread assuming it's all "new". Some forums have an auto-lock if a thread does not get any new posts within a pre-set timeframe. That can be a problem where a thread maybe doesn't get new posts but the information in a top post does get edited from time to time, as editing an existing post normally doesn't mark the thread as "updated".

Nev'yn · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:14 pm

Yeah, the "locking" protocol is what seems to happen over @GoW...I *think* editing a thread on GoMe *does* show up as updates, not sure if this is because of Sophia or Leo's programming, though. But for some reason, I think that this feature might only be for the last post in a thread*.

(/me shrugs)

*Nev's Note: Because I recently did edits to the Shards of Dreams project thread's first post, and it didn't get bumped to the Recent Posts...Which I'm glad 'cause I've been adding plot in a very piece-mill fashion, and would have been showing as updated every few hours or so. Just sayin'.

*****
@Kor: Thanks for you and Musica rescuing me during all that.... :wink:

Tomala · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:35 pm

phpBB3 itself doesn't have issues with necro'd threads. However if you have quotes within quotes within quotes etc etc etc etc that can cause problems.

Nev'yn · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:18 pm

Oh, an' we *never* do that around here.

Tomala · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:30 pm

Nev'yn wrote:

Oh, an' we *never* do that around here.

Fortunately it has to be an absurd amount before anything happens.

Public Trash Can: fed with derail - nonsense posts

Who is online