Curious about posting manners

[closetgeek]

I have never been 100% on how this works. If I start a new thread that's already covered on an existing thread, there is always a reply that alerts me that the thread already exists. I feel bad when I have to ask a Mod to merge. Most of the time, I do a search, first. Sometimes I find it, sometimes I just can't. It seems that it's all about knowing the key words to put in the search. Sometimes, all I manage to pull up are threads from 6yrs ago. If it answers my question, that's great but if it doesn't, how long does a thread have to be dead before it's considered a zombie thread? If the thread is dedicated to a specific type of questions like book recommendations or 'who wrote this', I gather it's not bad manners to revive an old thread, but what if you know the thread exists, but you just can't find it? I don't want to keep starting new threads only to have to ask a Mod to merge it.

[Moose]

There's no real consensus on that (not sure there ever would be), but I tend to treat any thread that's been dormant longer than a month as a dead thread.

Which means I consider that any post over which one could start a new thread would also be appropriate as a resurrecting post. The older the thread, the more needed the notification that one is raising the thread, and simultaneously, the more appropriate it would be to start a new thread over it.

I wouldn't worry too much about it, CG, unless we're talking a thread that's only been misplaced a week or two ago.

Either way, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Merging threads isn't especially time consuming. Even when you're merging them across forums. It's not like we have a mod thread muttering about "that pesky CG" or anything. *chuckle* Well, not more than one or two anyway.

[closetgeek]

Oh, good to know, can you merge it with my Why Moose Is A Big Meanie thread . Thanks for the answer.

[Fazor]

It's one thing when people say "you're questions answered here" and re-direct your attention to a "dead thread" (my definition is a little different than Moosey's, but along the same lines).

I don't like when new threads are merged with a long-time dead thread*, because that can make following the new conversation difficult, and invariably you'll start to get people replying to years-old posts not realizing that they were posted long before the new conversation. In short, when a new conversation is merged with a dead one, things can get confusing and disjointed.

*There's some exceptions. If I post a one-post new thread asking a question, and an old thread can completely answer it, and there's no new discussion, go ahead and merge the straggler thread.

But I think the mods handle it on a case by case basis and I have no complaints thus far.

[HenrikOlsen]

I feel bad when I have to ask a Mod to merge. ... I don't want to keep starting new threads only to have to ask a Mod to merge it.

That's the beauty of using the report triangle for making a merge request.
It's visible by all moderators which means the move will be done by someone who isn't bothered by doing it.

[Gillianren]

Personally, I have no problem with resurrecting old threads, so long as it's made clear that you are. Oh, you'll still get people responding to those who have left long since--one way or another!--but that can happen on threads that haven't fallen completely dormant and have just gone on a really long time.