Zombies...again.

[EwanWhosearmy]

I know this has been asked many many times. PLEASE can zombies be locked, and only reanimated by the OP, once they are over 6 months or so since the last post?

I've read 3 long threads this week, only to realise that the OP was from 2011 or 2012. There seems to be a thing that new users immediately start searching for old threads to reanimate, and with the growth in the site it's becoming all too regular. I don't understand why they do it, but it's really annoying.

[OhYouBadBadKitten]

I've just noticed that there are two zombie threads that have been bumped with a single post and there is no zombie warning on them. Ipad safari.

[Coconut0il]

There are 7 zombie threads bumped to the top of the primary forum right now. All about attendance and sickness

[Coconut0il]

The posts that bumped the threads have been deleted but there is no warning at either the top or bottom that it's a zombie. People will reply to someone asking for advice about their child having a day off in 2013!

[SpookyPotato]

I agree with locking them, it's such a big site that there is no harm posting a fresh thread, like there might be on smaller forums. I don't agree with culling though, I read tons of old and interesting threads on google searches.

[TheDrsDocMartens]

Lock them and cull some topics more frequently.

[WorraLiberty]

IonaMumsnet, for years now people having asking why MNHQ can't lock threads after a certain amount of time, and leave them for reference.

If a couple of years later an OP wants to update, all they have to is link the old thread.

Equally, if a new poster is looking for advice on a certain topic, they can still read the old threads - they just can't resurrect them.

And again, if they want to actually discuss the topic, they can start a new thread linking the old one.

I can't remember why now, but HQ's answer over the years has been a point blank 'NO'

[Sparklingbrook]

Why do Chat threads disappear after 90 days but AIBU is kept for all eternity?

I think most AIBU threads could be deleted within the week TBH.

[PurpleDaisies]

Now we've got zombie threads up and running after some troll reanimated them to make trouble. I just don't understand the need to leave these threads open.

[AnnIeAnoniMouse]

Iona

Thank you for asking.

Personally I think it needs to be at the top. I can't see why people find it off putting, but to be honest, if they do, they're probably not going to last here anyway.

Then (IMO) it needs to STAY in the posting box, permanently.

I don't know whether it's technically possible, but it would be good if MN could do something to return it 'as it was' if the 'reviving' post is inappropriate. Ban the spamming twats & send an email to innocent but misguided others, to start their own thread or whatever. Then the old thread is 'as it was' not revived, not in active etc

[cozietoesie]

I've come across very few threads - and that would be very few - where a person was updating. Certainly after a few weeks or so. By far the majority of resurrections are from spammers.

I'd have thought, in view of the huge potential for out of date advice (products which are no longer made, old links to dead sites, outdated legislation are only some examples) that MNHQ actually ought to be putting a 'health warning' on older threads let alone locking them.

[HelenDenver]

"I think most AIBU threads could be deleted within the week TBH."

Amen to that.

[bruffin]

Just lock rhem. Nobody reads the new posts , just answers the op who is usually long gone.

[CockacidalManiac]

If the old thread is locked to comments, any OP updating could still link to it for those interested.

[ElzBelz]

I've said this before but the way they come up in clumps I think could be because of the 'bump and reset' option on the watch list. It would be so easy to click on a few to delete and hit the wrong button, as they are right next to each other, then they are at the top of the board again and someone replies and off we go. It would explain why the first person posting often doesn't realise it's an old thread either. I think removing the 'bump and reset' option would help

[Sparklingbrook]

A thread about cock swinging has been resurrected today. It's from October so relatively new zombie, but makes you wonder what people are googling.

[cozietoesie]

I'd think 'baby steps', Sparkling. Accustom people to thinking first of locking threads after a year.

[Sparklingbrook]

[cozietoesie]

Although, for myself - Well. 30 days seems to be the going rate for most things?

[panicstationscentral]

Why on earth would you care?

[Sparklingbrook]

Care about what panicstationcentral?

[WotNoLoobrush]

I makes total sense to lock old threads imo. As already mentioned, an OP can easily link to an old thread if necessary! Why not?

[panicstationscentral]

If somebody comments on an old thread? Why is it irritating?

[Sparklingbrook]

People have explained why on this thread panicstationcentral.

[cozietoesie]

Because many of those who 'comment' are doing so to spam the boards. It may also resurrect a thread with outdated guidance (which people think is current) and have posters on it who are no longer on the site - and who therefore won't reply. A multiplicity of reasons, really.

[cozietoesie]

I suspect that it might be the possible size of the task that's daunting MNHQ. Heck - it's coming up to summer, though.