Waking up a dead or concluded discussion in a topic

[Cryptoprincess101]

I do come across threads that have been inactive for more than four months and all of a sudden you will just see a user make a reply on such post that have been inactive for a long time and possibly the discussion is the OP looks concluded from previous replies of other users and this is mostly done by newbies so is it necessary to wake up an inactive thread or the OP is to be blamed for not locking the thread when the thread became inactive and the information required by the OP has been ascertained and if it is a case where such discussions in the OP arises in the future can that same thread be reactivated or it will be better to create a new thread?.

[cryptoaddictchie]

I do come across threads that have been inactive for more than four months and all of a sudden you will just see a user make a reply on such post that have been inactive for a long time and possibly the discussion is the OP looks concluded from previous replies of other users and this is mostly done by newbies so is it necessary to wake up an inactive thread or the OP is to be blamed for not locking the thread

If the topics is concern is currently active or needed some update its fine I think. But if its a worthless bump then I guess it should be reported to moderators.  Yes sometimes some new users are not paying attention on the age of the thread as long as they see the topic they wanna engage. For first timers its okay but if its continuous then its not a mistake anymore.

As a concern user the better way to do is just report the post so mods would take it down or sees that the thread is necessary for lock up.

[Despairo]

this is mostly done by newbies so is it necessary to wake up an inactive thread or the OP is to be blamed for not locking the thread

No @OP shouldn't be blamed for not locking the thread, even you see the thread should be locked and it's not yet locked, you can report the thread to moderator.

By default the forum currently don't have a notification to notify the users if someone posted in their thread, only users who use telegram bot that know it.

if it is a case where such discussions in the OP arises in the future can that same thread be reactivated or it will be better to create a new thread?.

Up to you, there's no rule to forbid someone to bump old thread as long as your post is important and necessary, create a new thread is nothing wrong too if you want to discuss about a new thing that differ from the old thread.

[Learn Bitcoin]

You have to see who bumped the thread after a long time and the reason behind the bump. Imagine someone was searching for it and found an old thread where he might get some help. In this case, if they simply reply instead of creating a thread, we should appreciate it instead of blaming them.

But, if it's a user who was not looking for any kind of help but just wants to make a reply and increase the post count for their signature campaign, they are the person to blame. Sometimes, reporting those posts work work. But you should ignore people like that.

[jrrsparkles]

I do come across threads that have been inactive for more than four months and all of a sudden you will just see a user make a reply on such post that have been inactive for a long time and possibly the discussion is the OP looks concluded from previous replies of other users and this is mostly done by newbies so is it necessary to wake up an inactive thread or the OP is to be blamed for not locking the thread when the thread became inactive and the information required by the OP has been ascertained and if it is a case where such discussions in the OP arises in the future can that same thread be reactivated or it will be better to create a new thread?.

Blaming OP or the person who replied to the thread is not going to solve things.

So, here's what you need to do if you ever found a thread being bumped by anyone without any valuable reason then just go and report the new post to the report to moderator and in the comment box type 'Necro Bumping the thread', then sooner it will be taken down if it has zero value to the discussion.

[pinggoki]

You have to see who bumped the thread after a long time and the reason behind the bump. Imagine someone was searching for it and found an old thread where he might get some help. In this case, if they simply reply instead of creating a thread, we should appreciate it instead of blaming them.

But, if it's a user who was not looking for any kind of help but just wants to make a reply and increase the post count for their signature campaign, they are the person to blame. Sometimes, reporting those posts work work. But you should ignore people like that.

I think ignoring necroposters are going to be a problem if we don't report them, I think that it's the thing that we should all do, it makes sure that there's freshness in the topic and that we're not talking about stuff that's already been resolved, the only time that I think that bumping old threads is good is if they have some relevance like when there's a story about a person that was scamming people and the topic is about chasing after those scammers, an update to that no matter the years is still fine because that means that there's a conclusion to the thread. I can totally agree with you when it comes to those necroposters that don't really have anything to contribute to the post, some people just can't really help to do it at all, they've made replies to almost all the threads in the board that they frequent so it's no surprise that they get desperate.

[BlackBoss_]

I do come across threads that have been inactive for more than four months and all of a sudden you will just see a user make a reply on such post that have been inactive for a long time and possibly the discussion is the OP looks concluded from previous replies of other users and this is mostly done by newbies so is it necessary to wake up an inactive thread

First you can see those inactive threads pumped by newbie accounts but it does not stop here.

Next is not newbie members, but high-ranking members, who did not notice how old that thread is, not only four months but maybe four years or older, was pumped by a newbie. They joined those discussions and did not know that they just replied to a non sense post from newbie.

I don't know how newbies can find threads that already are inactive some years, and bump it.

the OP is to be blamed for not locking the thread when the thread became inactive and the information required by the OP has been ascertained

OP can lock it and should do it but if OP did not lock it, months later, it was bumped by newbies, it's hard to say the spam is because of OP.

Other posters who join those discussions have responsibility too by did not read OP, but only reply to a newbie's post to reactive an inactive thread.

[Kelward]

I do come across threads that have been inactive for more than four months and all of a sudden you will just see a user make a reply on such post that have been inactive for a long time and possibly the discussion is the OP looks concluded from previous replies of other users and this is mostly done by newbies so is it necessary to wake up an inactive thread or the OP is to be blamed for not locking the thread when the thread became inactive and the information required by the OP has been ascertained and if it is a case where such discussions in the OP arises in the future can that same thread be reactivated or it will be better to create a new thread?.

I do notice this sometimes with some threads, and it quite surprises me when I check the dates and see that the thread has been inactive for a very long time and suddenly resurrected. I also observe that it's mainly newbies that are doing this, I feel that it's fine if the reason for replying on such threads is meaningful, but it's appalling when there's no meaningful reason to go and start making posts on a thread that it's topic has been long concluded. I'll go with the consensus agreement here, the best action to take in such instances is to report to moderator.

[acroman08]

so is it necessary to wake up an inactive thread or the OP is to be blamed for not locking the thread when the thread became inactive and the information required by the OP has been ascertained and if it is a case where such discussions in the OP arises in the future can that same thread be reactivated or it will be better to create a new thread?.

from what I know if the poster is adding something new and substantial to the dead thread, there is nothing wrong with waking it up.

why would the OP be blamed for not locking the thread? it is common and normal to keep a thread open just in case (as I mentioned) a new poster is adding something new and substantial to the thread.

and if it is a case where such discussions in the OP arises in the future can that same thread be reactivated or it will be better to create a new thread?

if the discussion is substantial enough and directly correlates with the original post, I think it is fine to reactivate the thread, there is also nothing wrong with creating a new thread for it(at least in my view).

[Cryptoprincess101]

I do come across threads that have been inactive for more than four months and all of a sudden you will just see a user make a reply on such post that have been inactive for a long time and possibly the discussion is the OP looks concluded from previous replies of other users and this is mostly done by newbies so is it necessary to wake up an inactive thread

First you can see those inactive threads pumped by newbie accounts but it does not stop here.

Next is not newbie members, but high-ranking members, who did not notice how old that thread is, not only four months but maybe four years or older, was pumped by a newbie. They joined those discussions and did not know that they just replied to a non sense post from newbie.

I don't know how newbies can find threads that already are inactive some years, and bump it.

I doubt if users don't notice how old a thread is because when you try to make a reply in an old thread, a warning or rather notification pops up showing that the thread is an old one so there is no excuse for a user in this regard. It is very simple for newbies to find out post that was made long time ago by just just going to the last page of a particular board and find a topic they can comment on.

[kentrolla]

No OP cannot be blamed and I think you need to check the reasons why it has been bumped after such a long inactivity because often I have seen old topics become relevant where someone might have predicted something which has come true after a year or months. Let's not focus our time just trying to blame others or finding fault in other people's work rather understand the root cause behind it and do something productive.

[AVE5]

I do come across threads that have been inactive for more than four months and all of a sudden you will just see a user make a reply on such post that have been inactive for a long time and possibly the discussion is the OP looks concluded from previous replies of other users and this is mostly done by newbies so is it necessary to wake up an inactive thread or the OP is to be blamed for not locking the thread

If the topics is concern is currently active or needed some update its fine I think. But if its a worthless bump then I guess it should be reported to moderators.  Yes sometimes some new users are not paying attention on the age of the thread as long as they see the topic they wanna engage. For first timers its okay but if its continuous then its not a mistake anymore.

As a concern user the better way to do is just report the post so mods would take it down or sees that the thread is necessary for lock up.

One thing I'm yet to understand is how threads are be programed to trend in the boards. So sometimes I think the moderators are the ones revalidation those old threads so that others can reach out to the thread and also contributes if there need be.
There could actually be some kinda threads that could be older enough to be skipped off but due to the contexts quality of the threads it wouldn't see Worth getting abandoned or look away because others could be in need of it with some vital contributions to the thread in future.

Although I can also understand the instincts of the Op just as you've said, if the contexts of the thread has a satisfactory feedbacks from other community members, then it doesn't require further contributes as time goes.
So it is recommended such post are locked. I'd suggest if the moderator can always write to the OP of such threads to find out if they're satisfied with the level of replies pertaining what they initially requested right on their previous thread for the moderators to t decide on the action.

[knowngunman]

Next is not newbie members, but high-ranking members, who did not notice how old that thread is, not only four months but maybe four years or older, was pumped by a newbie. They joined those discussions and did not know that they just replied to a non sense post from newbie.

I don't know how newbies can find threads that already are inactive some years, and bump it.

A random search can bring out outdated posts sometimes and if you don't pay attention to the date you won't notice it is an old thread. I have experience it before numerous times but there's no need to respond to such posts unless it's very necessary. By the way, the forum use to issue a warning note when you attempt to respond to old posts reminding you that there has been no reply on this thread for a couple of months now and whether you would like to continue or better still create a new thread. I assume that some people don't pay attention to notice the warning before posting on the very old thread.

OP can lock it and should do it but if OP did not lock it, months later, it was bumped by newbies, it's hard to say the spam is because of OP.

Other posters who join those discussions have responsibility too by did not read OP, but only reply to a newbie's post to reactive an inactive thread.

I can't blame the Op or people who joined the thread lately. We normally come across old but useful thread that engaging in it might take it to someone else notice whom might benefit from it. I prefer to keep the thread moving as far as people are not derailing from point of discussion than seeing a new thread that looks similar and will get almost the same responses, ideas and opinions just like in the old thread. A close observation in this particular board is typical example of board with a repeated thread. Most questions or threads here can be a reply on a similar thread and someone will probably provide an answer to the question. There's no point in creating new thread if there is a thread it can fit in as a reply but almost everyone of us is guilty of this.

[boyptc]

If the latest reply is still relevant, that's fine and the mods will just leave it fine.

But if it seems a necropost/bump or reply, you can report the thread so that the mods will lock it.

There is no way that the OP will lock it if he has been inactive for so long or even if there is no new reply and you just happen to search it and you saw that thread, you may try to report it as well so it will be locked.

[PX-Z]

...such discussions in the OP arises in the future can that same thread be reactivated or it will be better to create a new thread?.

Depends on the question/s that is going to ask. If it requires much and detailed attention better to create a new thread.

Answering/replying an old topic/thread/post with detailed answers i guess will be fine but mods have different POV for that, once reported, highly likely it will be deleted.

[pawanjain]

Over the year, I have seen it happening multiple times and it most of those people waking inactive threads are newbies.
They just reply on that threads randomly without any valid reasoning.
This makes the thread active and then a whole lot other users keep replying on the thread making it longer.
One solution that I can think of would be to restrict newbies from posting on threads which are more than 4 months old.
This would decrease these occurrences a lot.

[Asiska02]

I do come across threads that have been inactive for more than four months and all of a sudden you will just see a user make a reply on such post that have been inactive for a long time and possibly the discussion is the OP looks concluded from previous replies of other users and this is mostly done by newbies so is it necessary to wake up an inactive thread or the OP is to be blamed for not locking the thread when the thread became inactive and the information required by the OP has been ascertained and if it is a case where such discussions in the OP arises in the future can that same thread be reactivated or it will be better to create a new thread?.

What could possibly bring a dead thread up when it has nothing so relevant in the reply of the person that brought it up? OP cannot be blamed for not locking the thread because some replies that comes afterwards sometime contains a lot of useful information that will be useful to the forum users.

I have seen threads like that been brought back to life after some months, but checking the recent reply or the OP’s intent of creating the thread will only determine if I should comment there or not. For the case of newbies bringing up a dead thread, I don’t see it happening often like big members do bring them up.

Creating a new thread that is similar to the original thread is not that necessary to me though, but if it becomes a necessity to do that, it is better the new OP adds the link of the original thread for reference purposes. I won’t see that as spamming, but as a way to continue further discussion on the previous topic which is okay in my opinion.

[dimonstration]

I do come across threads that have been inactive for more than four months and all of a sudden you will just see a user make a reply on such post that have been inactive for a long time and possibly the discussion is the OP looks concluded from previous replies of other users and this is mostly done by newbies so is it necessary to wake up an inactive thread or the OP is to be blamed for not locking the thread when the thread became inactive and the information required by the OP has been ascertained and if it is a case where such discussions in the OP arises in the future can that same thread be reactivated or it will be better to create a new thread?.

If the discussion is still relevant to the topic then it’s not wrong to post on that inactive thread since it’s just 4 months rather than newbie creating same topic just to discuss same matter.

What I consider unethical is answering those years old inactive thread with an answer that is already outdated for that specific time frame. There’s a lot of issue like this before that old question being answered now by newbie that doesn’t read the date. But if it’s a months old discussion then it’s fine as long as the thread doesn’t ask specific question that already answered 2 page or more.

[Ethan151]

If a person has an interesting contribution to make or still has a query, they may choose to go back and review an earlier topic. Let the thread be from years ago rather than just a month, even if it has to be locked.

[moneystery]

i also saw that there were many threads that had not been active for months, but there were still users who still replied to these threads, and most of these users were newbies. but maybe they don't understand or they think that it is a normal thing, but it is better for users to report it to the moderator so that these threads can be locked, especially when the discussion is actually over and no one else is replying. it's just not nice to see that there are still people who keep replying and even want to start the discussion again when the discussion is over.