Right, who the hell keeps resurrecting old threads ?

[ApocalypseCheeseToastie]

it's bloody annoing, post on something then clock the date was two years ago.

It's like the chuffin history of mumsnet on ere at the mo.

[ApocalypseCheeseToastie]

And I have posted in the wrong place.

Ffs

[Sevenfold]

yanbu

[themightyskim]

lmao wasn't intended for the pregnancy thread was it? seems to be happening a lot on there atm

[StetsonsAreCool]

Yanbu. But I suspect I am guilty of posting on them too. Am crap at checking OP date

[Ifancyashandy]

Indeed. I keep seeing threads with over 100 posts and think 'oh, fleck - I've missed the bun fight!' only to discover I posted on it a year ago!

Most irregular and unnecessary.

[ApocalypseCheeseToastie]

Its happening soddin eveywhere, wtf is the point in it ?

Serial namechanger mefinks.

[Tianc]

Can someone explain that weird "spy code using old threads conspiracy theory" to me again? Only last time it went right over my head.

[slavetofilofax]

But WHY? Why would someone get a cheap thrill out of resurrecting old thread with innane comments. I don't get it.

[GrimmaTheNome]

It may be someone new who doesn't realise its not the done thing. When I first found MN, many years ago, I was looking for help on a specific issue - so I searched existing threads, read what was there and then added a question onto what seemed like the most relevant. It seemed like a reasonable approach - rather than barging in starting a whole new thread which might have to go over some of the same ground.

The flip side of 'zombie' threads is the ' haven't we done this a million times, yawn' response to a new thread on a well-hashed subject - whats a newbie supposed to do?

[BertieBotts]

I normally read the OP and think " I'm sure this sounds familiar!", then check the date - it's almost always one I've posted on before! Easier to spot now with own-post highlighting I think.

I wonder if MNHQ would think about a highlighting option for threads which are more than a certain age? I know a different forum I use pops up a little text box on threads over 28 days old saying "Caution! You are about to reply to a thread on which the last post was several weeks ago. Please think carefully about whether your post is relevant to the thread, and if not, consider starting a new one. In general, necromancy is frowned upon unless you are offering new information to a specific situation." (Or something of that ilk)

[blonderedhead]

I just did that, but I did apologise for it.

[furtree]

So what is so wrong with posting to old threads, if it has been done before.

Maybe MN should delete post that are older then 60 days or so

[SurprisEs]

This is a forum about parenting. Most parenting issues are timeless so I don't see a problem with it.

[BertieBotts]

No, I think it's useful to have old threads to read through.

It's not too bad if it's something like "Can you recommend a car seat that fits in X car" as someone might search for that in the future/it might be useful to other people with that car, but if it's something like "Help! Should I wean at 13 weeks?" and the thread is 6 months old, it's probably a bit late

[scottishmummy]

not-like-the-ole days crew used to do it,for a laugh,jape.bet
quite lame.really
but hey bet not a dry seat in their house oh how they larffed

[ladygrieg]

I personally can't see a problem with it at all. Surely most people are only on here occasionally and don't know all the posts in and out? And like surpriseEs say, most parenting issues are timeless.

Also, I often find posts on all kinds of forums by googling. I don't really care if the post is a year old or two days old if the contents relate to me.

I must admit that I'm more of an information gatherer than a forum participant. Unless in this instant I find I have some amazing insight I want to share....ehhh...

[Tianc]

Grimma that seems entirely sensible to me ? reading what's already there and asking a further Q.

The slightly odd ones are where people rock up to offer advice on a situation long gone, without reading the reveal on page 342 about the DH's third concubine's sister's dog's hairdresser's next door neighbour.

[RustyBear]

I started the 'empty nest' thread five years ago when DS went to university and it's been revived every year since. In fact, it's in Active Conversations right now, so people still seem to be finding it useful, and it has a lot of tips and information on it, most of which is still relevant, and all in one place rather than being scattered over several different threads, one for each year I'd be rather sad to see it go, just because the date on the original post is 2006 rather than 2011.

[worraliberty]

I don't know why MNHQ don't 'lock' the threads so people can still read them but they can't bump them.

[GumballCharm]

One of them was me! It's not a crime....I deregged recently (due to ishoos) found I could not live without MN and came back today.....I searched for a particular thread and found an interesting one....replied...and then there were people going on about Zombies ffs.

All a bit serious is it?

[perfumedlife]

Yes, I just saw five threads about scented candles and they were three years old. Not that the scented candle world gallops along fast or anything but still. Think a yankee candle salesperson might be involved somewhere.

[meditrina]

It all depends on the thread, what it said before and what's being added now.

I don't see resurrecting a thread as a problem in itself.

Crass posting is a whole different thing, and not limited by age of thread.

[EricNorthmansMistress]

It's annoying - an active thread is a conversation - people check it and respond to recent posts and it is organic. A dead thread that is revived is not a conversation - it's dead! People can waste time reading through the thread and responding without realising that the conversation is basically over - the conversation was over 1-2-3 years ago!
There are also responses to situations that are obviously current at that time - what is the point in replying two years after a poster's baby is born regarding whether to BF them, or whatever it might be?

[HecateGoddessOfTheNight]

I bet it happens when they either

1. view threads in alphabetical order rather than in date order, or
   
2. use the search function for a particular phrase, issue or condition
   and then don't think to check the dates.
   
   tbh, I don't really see why mn needs to keep threads from a million years ago but since they do then after X amount of time, a thread should be archived, where it can be viewed, but not added to. and it should clearly state that it is an archived thread from eons ago.
   
   Much clearer

[GrimmaTheNome]

Its annoying if its the sort of thread that really is a conversation, or dealing with a specific 'now' issue. But other threads, usually straightforward parenting advice, are pretty timeless.

Maybe MNHQ should lock threads in some topics from further posting after a period of inactivity. Chat goes away anyway, but I'd lock AIBU and 'In the News' for starters. And maybe Classics, those are somewhat prone to resurface.