Necro bumping

[E tank]

Why is this so awful again? Forums everywhere, universally, it is regarded as a point of derision and shame. Someone thumbing through old clinical threads provides a new insight or question building on what's already been said is so bad? Especially when there might be an arid spell in those types of posts?

Haven't done it here cause my ego couldn't take the finger wagging, but I'm pretty tempted...

 

[NomadicMedic]

I think it's only a problem when the brand new person, who didn't read the whole thread, says something like, "op, did you check the patient's vitals?"

Most of those original posters are long gone, the questions been asked and answered and there is nothing new added to the thread.

Most other forums I frequent have a 180 day cut off on threads. If you attempt to reply to an old thread, a warning pops up asking if you're contributing any new material to the discussion. Then the post is reviewed and approved or disproved as needed.

 

[VentMonkey]

I think it depends on the contexts, and how you go about it. That being said, necro-bumping a 5 plus year old thread should be deemed at least, laughable, but at best there should be a valid reason for said bump.

I agree it shouldn't be chastised all the time, and have/ still do contemplate bumping an old thread or two (we'll see), but I want to say it was also brought up some time ago in regards to the "etiquette" on this forum and the sacred "necro-bump statue of limitations".

I also think if one does bump and gets poked fun of, they need to take it with a grain of salt. This is merely an internet forum, and if again, they have something truly new, and/ or insightful to offer, in the long run they'll be doing everyone more good than harm.

So who cares as long as it's worth it to you...the bumper...not you E tank because you're not the bumper...yet.

 

[Summit]

What vent said. It's perfectly acceptable if there is good to come of it, and it is also perfectly acceptable to raz the poster tastefully for it.

 

[Giant81]

I find it a bit funny too. You post a thread, and someone is all "oh did you use the search function it's been asked before" But the only threads you got on search were old, and not quite the same as you asked. Related? sure, but didn't answer your question. It would make sense to ask that question in a related thread for clarity, but at the same time get admonished for necro thread digging.

Double edged sword sometimes.

 

[NPO]

Oh. This is about reviving a dead thread. Thought it was something else.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.lati...nurse-sex-with-corpse-20140707-story,amp.html

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[Carlos Danger]

Oh. This is about reviving a dead thread. Thought it was something else.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.lati...nurse-sex-with-corpse-20140707-story,amp.html

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Oh no.....lol

 

[NysEms2117]

Oh. This is about reviving a dead thread. Thought it was something else.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.lati...nurse-sex-with-corpse-20140707-story,amp.html

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

idk why i laughed. but i did. *facepalm*

 

[AtlasFlyer]

The biggest problem, IMO, with resurrecting years-old threads is that information can be dated. Protocols change, and the way something was done even 4 years ago can be different now. It's also can be confusing for people reading the thread, from the beginning for the first time, to recognize there's a sudden time-warp jump. And as others have stated the OP may very well be long gone so answering a question or reigniting the conversation may be completely worthless as the OP is no longer around to see it, or the situation is now so far in the past it just doesn't matter or isn't relevant anymore.

In another forum I moderate, the site admin has a 3 month auto-lock on threads. We tell people if they want to talk about a subject of an old thread to start a new thread with a link to the old thread in it. It makes people aware they're reading something 'old', but allows for new discussion.