What is the general consensus on necroing threads on BGG?

[Iidhaegn]

So I know people hate the act of thread rezzing (posting to a thread that's been dead for a while - how long a "while" is varies from forum to forum: a year or more, a few weeks, 20 minutes...) on various forums, but what's the general consensus on BGG? (At least as understood by visitors to this site...)

I don't understand why people hate thread necromancers. The Internet is like that. Just because it was posted last year, and whether or not it is still relevant to YOU, does not mean that some other person stumbling on said thread can't find relevance in it at a far future date.

To complicate things even more, people will frequently berate others for "not using the search function" (regardless how good [or bad] said search function may be) on topics that have been discussed before, and yet, when those people post to the ancient threads they sometimes get "instructed" to "start a new thread."

It's not really a serious issue, but I am wondering what people on BGG think.

[Cringing Dragon]

I've rarely seen vicious responses to anything in BGG, and on the occasions that I have, that poster has usually been jumped on in turn. You're likely to get a comment like "Holy thread resurrection, Batman" or the like but nothing much worse than that. And you are still likely to get a reasonable response to whatever you were asking.

One exception to that - if someone (especially a new user) responds to an old thread with anything that might remotely appear to be an advertisement (eg a link to a different site), that will get a bad response, and possibly get flagged as spam and if it's a new user they may be banned. A relevant link posted in a current thread is less likely to garner that response (unless it's a new user that is doing nothing but promoting another site).

As for the searching first,if you make a reasonable attempt and can't find it, then say so in your post and you'll usually get a reasonable response (although the response may only be a link to another thread if it has already been answered).

[aliquis]

I don't think it's a problem at all except if it's someone asking what to buy for christmas 2011 and someone awake that thread and he or she get a bunch of new answers which may not even be read or used because people don't look at the first post.

[aliquis]

Also imho only idiots would complain for the reasons you mentioned. The old thread will still be bump upwards in the thread views, all content will be available including more old information so why not.

[Iidhaegn]

I find complaints about rezzing to be annoying. But I always thought Thread Necromancer would be a funny character class in some "Kingdom of Loathing"-esque RPG

[Hmmmm]

I can't recall ever seeing a person attacked for bumping an old thread on BGG. Since there are SO many subjects on BGG that are as relevant today as they were 2 years ago (games that play well with 6 geek list, Tigris & Eupphrates strategies, etc) I think pretty much everyone here finds it perfectly acceptable for new additions to be made to most threads regardless of their age.

Obviously bumping a Hot Deals thread from 3 years ago could irritate a lot of people if it makes them think the deal is new and click through in anticipation of getting whatever the title was promoting, but these kind of time sensitive topics are more the exception than the rule given the nature of the site. 

As long as a topic can pass this simple test…

- Is this subject still valuable and/or relevant today?

Then you're not going to see any ruffled feathers by contributing a new post to it. 

[Trump]

I've never seen anyone complain about this, but I wholeheartedly support thread necromancy.  There are SO many threads and messages that could be deleted on the database as it is.  By continuing a topic in an existing thread, you're reducing that clutter.  The only negative I see to the practice is for the necromancer.  There may not be anyone still watching that thread and so you might not ever get a reply.

[ErikPeter]

The system has ups and downs. I think now that the subscription system is in place (remember back when threads basically vanished as soon as they weren't "hot"?) posting to old threads is good, since it puts them back on "recent" but also old subscribers/posters with auto-sub can come back to it and weigh in. But sometimes (and I have done this) while searching for a different topic, you'll come across something that you can't help but respond to, only to realize that it's a three year old post on a topic that no longer applies (like weird, old errata or a different version of a game than you thought it was) and no one in the thread is an active user anymore... and well, it's not likely a contribution to the site that will have any effect.

And then there's the geeklists, whose themes are bound to be repeated, and a dozen people suggest old similar ones... Which always defeats the purpose, because i'd argue the objective of a geeklist is to make the front page in hotness, and have a discussion now, not add appropriate entries to some odd list a year ago. If only to get different perspectives on games than the first time around! 

I'm just rambling, but I suppose I mean to say that I think 'rezzing' old posts is okay, but I also think that starting new threads is fine in most circumstances (maybe not the same question someone asked a couple days ago in the rules forum...) 

The only types of comments I really hate are empty dismissals of the poster's opinion (when good discussion could be had instead)--since those are the posts that often get the most thumbs in a thread and they're not helpful at all.