Zombie Thread Apocalypse

Wintervenom · 2010-07-31 01:00:11

[With] [the] [number] [of] [zombies] [rapidly] [approaching] [a] [tangent] [peak], maybe it would be better if preemptive defensive measures were taken and old threads were archived or locked after a period of time to prevent [infection] [from] [spreading] and spare the gunners' resources and time.

Last edited by Wintervenom (2010-08-17 15:37:27)

fsckd · 2010-07-31 02:04:12

Is there a valid reason to allow necroposting?

JackH79 · 2010-07-31 02:14:42

Mostly not.
However, some are more harmless than other. This one is probably one of the harmless ones.
But then, they are unimportant enough so that it wouldn't matter to block them.

I think in the end it's up to the forum mods (and whether FluxBB allows to automate such things). They have to deal with these things on a daily base and have thus the power and previlege to decide. Since it hasn't been implemented yet, I'm guessing it's not possible/not wanted.
In the end it doesn't matter what I (we) think about it. It's up to the mods.

skottish · 2010-07-31 02:40:42

Wintervenom wrote:

[With] [the] [number] [of] [zombies] [rapidly] [approaching] [a] [tangent] [peak], maybe it would be better if preemptive defensive measures were taken and old threads were archived or locked after a period of time to prevent [infection] [from] [spreading] and spare the gunners' resources and time.

I guess that you don't recall the thread on how we were being too aggressive:

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=94061

karol · 2010-07-31 10:04:36

skottish wrote:

Wintervenom wrote:
[With] [the] [number] [of] [zombies] [rapidly] [approaching] [a] [tangent] [peak], maybe it would be better if preemptive defensive measures were taken and old threads were archived or locked after a period of time to prevent [infection] [from] [spreading] and spare the gunners' resources and time.
I guess that you don't recall the thread on how we were being too aggressive:
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=94061

I think closing a couple of old thread a day is not _that_ unusual. It's not welcome either, but oh well.

I'd like to apologize for some hilarious necrobumping that happened because I didn't check the time of the previous post:
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 58#p792358

Misfit138 · 2010-07-31 11:47:49

fsckd wrote:

Is there a valid reason to allow necroposting?

It all comes down to: If you can provide a version-agnostic solution, yes. If not, no.

MkFly · 2010-07-31 19:16:20

Misfit138 wrote:

fsckd wrote:
Is there a valid reason to allow necroposting?
It all comes down to: If you can provide a version-agnostic solution, yes. If not, no.

Well, what was the deal with the Do your parents use Linux? thread? That information isn't really time-sensitive at all, so I don't really see how necrobumping that one could be considered harmful to the forums. In fact, since one of the stated goals in the Wiki regarding necroposting is to keep the forums tidy, it works in opposition to it in that case. "Okay, that thread (Do your parents use Linux) is now closed, I'll open up a new one ...", which isn't really tidy.

If even threads like that are going to be locked when necrobumped, why aren't threads just auto-locked after N weeks of no new postings?

karol · 2010-07-31 19:26:04

MkFly wrote:

Misfit138 wrote:
fsckd wrote:
Is there a valid reason to allow necroposting?
It all comes down to: If you can provide a version-agnostic solution, yes. If not, no.
Well, what was the deal with the Do your parents use Linux? thread? That information isn't really time-sensitive at all, so I don't really see how necrobumping that one could be considered harmful to the forums. In fact, since one of the stated goals in the Wiki regarding necroposting is to keep the forums tidy, it works in opposition to it in that case. "Okay, that thread (Do your parents use Linux) is now closed, I'll open up a new one ...", which isn't really tidy.
If even threads like that are going to be locked when necrobumped, why aren't threads just auto-locked after N weeks of no new postings?

Maybe that thread belonged to a blog? One liners like "My dad like the Grizzlies more" don't have much value.
I think you can e-mail the mod and ask him to re-open that thread.

Misfit138 · 2010-07-31 21:20:25

Necrobumping seems to be a real hot issue!
It is really toward the technical subforums that the rule is imperative. Please realize, though that the mods have been in the hotseat with this issue. We have been damned-if-we-do/don't and are trying to feel our way through a peaceful and simple protocol.
If anyone feels strongly enough about a given closed thread, I urge you to contact the mod, or state some tactful reasoning by utilizing the forum report function.

Mr.Elendig · 2010-08-02 14:42:28

My opinion (whish ofcourse isn't worth anything at all) is that agresive closing is the lesser of two evils. And when there are cases where a thread should not have been closed, it's a simple matter of poking the admins to get it opened again.

Edit: I also "vote" for closing zombie threads with some intresting message and/or image. Maybe people will start taking the hint if the threads are being closed with 15208d1247204376-indian-army-vs-american-army-necropost-kitten.jpg or similar.

Last edited by Mr.Elendig (2010-08-02 14:49:46)

sand_man · 2010-08-03 03:32:54

I hope this thread gets bumped in 5 years time. I love irony.

ngoonee · 2010-08-03 03:36:31

@Elendig, the thing is, most necroposters don't realize they're necroposting, I'd say about half are accidental and another half are from new members of the forums who come across threads based on google.

karol · 2010-08-03 03:58:00

ngoonee wrote:

@Elendig, the thing is, most necroposters don't realize they're necroposting, I'd say about half are accidental and another half are from new members of the forums who come across threads based on google.

But once you realized you messed up you're (hopefully) less likely to do it again.

cesura · 2010-08-03 04:47:07

I usually don't frown on people for necrobumping in the Off Topic/Try This sections. The other ones, however, are a different story. As stated above, most of the users that bump old threads are new users. Although they should have read Forum Etiquette before they sign up, I'm fairly lenient of new users bumping threads, as long as they don't do it multiple times.

However, the real problem are users that bump threads after one day has passed without a response.

ngoonee · 2010-08-03 07:23:59

itsbrad212 wrote:

However, the real problem are users that bump threads after one day has passed without a response.

sed 's/after/before/'?

Square · 2010-08-03 07:48:59

I would recommend something like closing [solved] threads n weeks after no new posts, and then closing regular threads n*2 weeks after no new posts.

This way, [solved] threads have time to fully settle before being closed while inactive threads have a bit more time to hopefully become [solved] before being closed.

I also support not necessarily closing offtopic threads and threads such as "Do Your Parents Use Linux?". This, of course, would require a wee bit less cold calculation when peering over aging threads.

JackH79 · 2010-08-03 07:58:33

Square wrote:

I would recommend something like closing [solved] threads n weeks after no new posts, and then closing regular threads n*2 weeks after no new posts.

Yeah, I can totally see that going to working. With all our members being so eager to add [SOLVED] to their threads.

cesura · 2010-08-03 14:38:09

ngoonee wrote:

itsbrad212 wrote:
However, the real problem are users that bump threads after one day has passed without a response.
sed 's/after/before/'?

Oh, I phrased that a little awkwardly. I was trying to say the problem are users that bump threads after only one day has passed without a response.

karol · 2010-08-03 14:41:54

sed 's/only/just/' ;P

IANA native English speaker, but I think the version with 'before' is the best.

Back on topic: I think the current system isn't bad. True, I was a bit overwhelmed by the number of zombie threads that have been spawning lately but it doesn't really matter whether mods have to close some topic or re-open another (e.g. because the auto-closing feature it too rigid) - it still requires about the same amount of attention.

Last edited by karol (2010-08-03 14:49:31)

ngoonee · 2010-08-04 01:14:17

itsbrad212 wrote:

ngoonee wrote:
itsbrad212 wrote:
However, the real problem are users that bump threads after one day has passed without a response.
sed 's/after/before/'?
Oh, I phrased that a little awkwardly. I was trying to say the problem are users that bump threads after only one day has passed without a response.

Well, in some subforums its quite necessary to bump after one day, since it'd fall off the first page (and hence never be read). I believe that's what the wiki suggests as well.

skottish · 2010-08-04 01:44:49

Without necrobumping, I have little reason to enlighten the community with clips like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzXk3nfEdMY

Misfit138 · 2010-08-04 01:50:10

skottish wrote:

Without necrobumping, I have little reason to enlighten the community with clips like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzXk3nfEdMY

Many, many hours of my teenage life were spent watching Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2 over and over and over...
So damned good.

Acecero · 2010-08-04 02:12:43

What is so hard about micro-managing zombie threads?

If member relentlessly necrobumps [said] thread: Close it.

If member necrobumps with an informative and relevant post: Leave it open and wait it out.

Another good solution: Open a new thread and paste the link to the thread you are referring to continue the discussion from where it left off, without necrobumping.

skottish · 2010-08-04 02:19:10

Acecero wrote:

What is so hard about micro-managing zombie threads?
If member relentlessly necrobumps [said] thread: Close it.
If member necrobumps with an informative and relevant post: Leave it open and wait it out.
Another good solution: Open a new thread and paste the link to the thread you are referring to continue the discussion from where it left off, without necrobumping.

We, the mod team, agree. That is the current system.

anonymous_user · 2010-08-04 05:28:27

BTW can moderators split out posts from a topic and make a new thread with it? Depending on what a person posts when necrobumping, it may be useful to just split their post into a new thread.

For example when a person posts about having a similar problem, I think you should just split out the post.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-07-31 01:00:11

Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#2 2010-07-31 02:04:12

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#3 2010-07-31 02:14:42

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#4 2010-07-31 02:40:42

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#5 2010-07-31 10:04:36

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#6 2010-07-31 11:47:49

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#7 2010-07-31 19:16:20

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#8 2010-07-31 19:26:04

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#9 2010-07-31 21:20:25

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#10 2010-08-02 14:42:28

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#11 2010-08-03 03:32:54

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#12 2010-08-03 03:36:31

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#13 2010-08-03 03:58:00

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#14 2010-08-03 04:47:07

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#15 2010-08-03 07:23:59

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#16 2010-08-03 07:48:59

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#17 2010-08-03 07:58:33

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#18 2010-08-03 14:38:09

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#19 2010-08-03 14:41:54

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#20 2010-08-04 01:14:17

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#21 2010-08-04 01:44:49

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#22 2010-08-04 01:50:10

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#23 2010-08-04 02:12:43

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#24 2010-08-04 02:19:10

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

#25 2010-08-04 05:28:27

Re: Zombie Thread Apocalypse

Board footer