Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

MN pleeeeease consider CLOSING OLD THREADS...

181 replies

Userguaranteed · 28/05/2021 09:33

...and only reopen if the OP requests it.

Posters are exhuming threads from ages ago and asking for updates, posting advice, etc. The recent one was from 2012!

I often look at dates now because I've been sucked into zombie threads many times in the past but sometimes I forget, especially if the thread hasn't got too many replies.

Can MN close zombie threads from say a year? There's nothing more to be said - let it go [in Elsa's voice].

OP posts:
user7891011 · 28/05/2021 20:23

Mother have valuable information in and sometimes means you don't have to post yourself as can already get the advice. It's not hard to check the date, if you don't as a mistake then oh well it's not the end of the world

user7891011 · 28/05/2021 20:23

*no most not mother

Geamhradh · 28/05/2021 20:24

@ticktockriojaoclock

Why not leave them up, and posters can decide whether to read or post on them or not? Some have useful info or links. If you've wasted time reading old threads that's on you, surely?
Agreed.
KatherineJaneway · 28/05/2021 20:26

No, they're not. Confused Use a little imagination, or just read this thread?

Of course they are Confused how can your post help someone with their situation 9 years later?

AlmostSummer21 · 28/05/2021 20:30

@soniamumsnet

Hi - just dropping in to say thanks for the feedback. Where possible we post when a 'zombie' thread has been resurrected, but we're happy to take your comments on board. Flowers
Hi @soniamumsnet

As has been said before (many times!!) the zombie warning goes off after a few posts.

I've asked before and never got an answer - why can't they be a different colour?

lightand · 28/05/2021 20:46

I vote for no.
If I want help with something, I often put the question into google and add mumsnet.
Just about always, helpful advice from MN, and yes it may be 3 year old advice, pops up.

MN is a very valuable resource.

I understand where people are coming from on this thread, but MN is by parents for parents.

Custardo · 28/05/2021 20:48

i havent been on mn for years - not regularly, i just looked up some old threads and had a right laugh with names i havent seen for ages.

i do see your point

FourWordsImMuNiTy · 28/05/2021 20:49

Why do you disagree with the OP’s proposal to lock old threads lightand? It wouldn’t stop anyone from getting the same benefit from reading older threads.

Whinge · 28/05/2021 20:50

@lightand

I vote for no. If I want help with something, I often put the question into google and add mumsnet. Just about always, helpful advice from MN, and yes it may be 3 year old advice, pops up.

MN is a very valuable resource.

I understand where people are coming from on this thread, but MN is by parents for parents.

But that would still be possible. Even if the thread was closed you'd still be able to read it and benefit from the advice.
PegPeople · 28/05/2021 20:50

If I want help with something, I often put the question into google and add mumsnet.
Just about always, helpful advice from MN, and yes it may be 3 year old advice, pops up.

No one is saying for the threads to be removed. You can still read them and enjoy the advice given but you just wouldn't be able to post on them.

lightand · 28/05/2021 20:58

@FourWordsImMuNiTy

Why do you disagree with the OP’s proposal to lock old threads lightand? It wouldn’t stop anyone from getting the same benefit from reading older threads.
Ah. Not as bad in that case.
HeyDemonsItsYaGirl · 28/05/2021 21:02

Of course they are confused how can your post help someone with their situation 9 years later?

Because every single thread on MN is asking advice on a time-sensitive situation, is it?

I don't even know why I'm replying to this when it's so obvious!

KatherineJaneway · 29/05/2021 06:32

Because every single thread on MN is asking advice on a time-sensitive situation, is it?

Never said that Hmm One zombie thread was revived by someone asking OP for an update years later. Others clearly hadn't seen the date and had spent time replying to situation that had been done and dusted for years. Hence total waste of time replying.

I don't even know why I'm replying to this when it's so obvious!

I wish you hadn't bothered giving you pearls of wisdom Hmm

MoreAloneTime · 29/05/2021 06:53

It's a form of trolling to repeatedly ressurect zombie threads. Everyone should know forum etiquette by now, it's not like Internet forums are a recent invention.

missmopple · 29/05/2021 09:42

I reported a couple of zombie resurrections yesterday.

MN replied that they have removed the initial resurrection posts but that they "don't close threads".

Deleting one comment is pointless and people are still posting advice this morning.

I have seen messages in the past where threads have been locked and if I could be bothered to go through my emails I could find the "thanks for pointing this out, we have closed this thread to new messages" replies, so they can do it, just choose not to Sad

Original poster
Userguaranteed · 29/05/2021 09:58

Really weird. Atleast put a visible banner up at the top and bottom of the page of any thread longer then 6 months so people will know and comment or not, if they choose to. Not sure why they've left it that way.

OP posts:
partyatthepalace · 29/05/2021 10:51

Yeah - agree - can’t see any disadvantage to locking them

NicknamesAreLikeKleenex · 29/05/2021 11:09

If you do go down the locking route then can I request a special exemption for the definitive Dadsnet thread, which is a thing of beauty and currently due to fill up some time in 2051.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/dadsnet/1273555-IS-this-the-only-dads-net-there-is-just-an-add-on

BIWI · 29/05/2021 13:07

@Custardo

i havent been on mn for years - not regularly, i just looked up some old threads and had a right laugh with names i havent seen for ages.

i do see your point

I thought it must be you @Custardo! Welcome back - how's things?
user145678945648945645789456 · 29/05/2021 13:24

Most of the people posting to defend this policy seem not to understand the difference between closing a thread to new replies and deleting it entirely.

Gwenhwyfar · 29/05/2021 13:29

"Agreed. I don't understand why some MNers are so enraged about reading old threads."

I agree.
There is a thread now where the OP has updated after 3 months and it's very interesting.

Original poster
Userguaranteed · 29/05/2021 14:56

Goodness. The op CAN update anyway so that isn't an argument against it, if it was to be locked.

OP posts:
Original poster
Userguaranteed · 29/05/2021 14:57

@user145678945648945645789456

Most of the people posting to defend this policy seem not to understand the difference between closing a thread to new replies and deleting it entirely.
Agreed. It's like going round in circles at this point.
OP posts:
DonkeysNotDisney · 29/05/2021 15:31

It's not going round in circles, it's just a different view. If you locked a thread and allowed only the op to update it then the threads would get lost in mn history. By allowing anyone to post some great threads get revived. I am, by most people's reasoning, on here an inordinate amount of time, and yet I still have missed some interesting threads and I like it when they are revived.

Original poster
Userguaranteed · 29/05/2021 15:44

I get that view, which is why I've repeatedly suggested MNHQ should then put a permanent banner on threads for posters to see and know they're old/revived and not just one by the comment box that disappears after the reviver has posted.

Other posters have said the same. So this is really where we are - they don't have to lock it - but I'm not sure what MNHQ wants to do about the banner suggestion.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread