@jrap seems quite busy lately but I had an idea that may or may not have been mentioned previously.

We are all aware that text at the end of a thread seems to have little effect on necroposting. It occurred to me, perhaps when the person clicks on “Post thread” a dialog could appear which contained a stern warning about the evils of waking the dead and required selecting a check box, then clicking “POST ANYWAY” to do continue. If you wanted to up the ante, you could make it a CAPTCHA.

In the deluxe implementation an alternative option “Start new thread“ would be available with text in the dialog that explains it would start a new thread with a reference to the old one and the post that had been composed.

Just a thought, since the polite warning doesn’t seem to affect new members which provokes a lot of necromancy which is strictly forbidden by the moderators, and, as it turns out the halacha (Jewish law).

 

Is this topic such a bad thing? When I came here I was a necroposter, not because I wanted to be but because I didn't even know it was bad. But after being told a few times what I was doing it enlightened me. Some of the necroposter's could be like me, first time forum users.

 

Is this topic such a bad thing? When I came here I was a necroposter, not because I wanted to be but because I didn't even know it was bad. But after being told a few times what I was doing it enlightened me. Some of the necroposter's could be like me, first time forum users.

Yes, that’s the reason for the clear explanation and assistance with starting a new thread.

New members don’t know and sometimes choose to join in order to post to an old thread because a search found it.

So helping them to create a new thread instead of starting out wrong seems a good thing for everyone.

 

New members don’t know and sometimes choose to join in order to post to an old thread because a search found it.

So helping them to create a new thread instead of starting out wrong seems a good thing for everyone.

Wasn't how it happened with me, and I'm no web expert at all. My necroposting was because most of my questions were answered in the original post, but not all of them. Starting out wrong only seems to be something that you don't like. This has been debated over many times here. If you or anyone else don't like reading an old thread isn't it your or their responsibility to look at the date on the first page of a thread? And that first page always comes up first on a necropst. Those of us that don't KNOW EVERYTHING some times learn something new by reading a necroposted thread, because our interests change over time.

 

I think there are varying circumstances, in some cases the new poster does not realize it is an old thread, but there are others that have found an answer to a question where there was no previous concrete answer.
I think the Mod's should take it on a case by case instance, not just move it or erase it Carte-blanche .
I am a moderator in a very large technical forum and that is the stance we take.

 

Wasn't how it happened with me, and I'm no web expert at all. My necroposting was because most of my questions were answered in the original post, but not all of them. Starting out wrong only seems to be something that you don't like. This has been debated over many times here. If you or anyone else don't like reading an old thread isn't it your or their responsibility to look at the date on the first page of a thread? And that first page always comes up first on a necropst. Those of us that don't KNOW EVERYTHING some times learn something new by reading a necroposted thread, because our interests change over time.

I don't think you understand my point. I am not discouraging reading the thread nor asking questions. I am saying that what the moderators have to do manually could be reduced if the person understood what was acceptable according to policy and was assisted in creating a new thread automatically including a reference to the old thread and the post they'd spent time writing.

On a separate note, I'd appreciate it if you would think twice about saying possibly insulting things because you are unhappy. It's both unpleasant and in this case factually incorrect. I have never insulted you, or even had warm words. I am not your enemy.

 

I think there are varying circumstances, in some cases the new poster does not realize it is an old thread, but there are others that have found an answer to a question where there was no previous concrete answer.
I think the Mod's should take it on a case by case instance, not just move it or erase it Carte-blanche .
I am a moderator in a very large technical forum and that is the stance we take.

If policies change then my suggestion is moot. I was talking about the current situation.

There are two reasons I care:

1. It wastes the time of the moderators if it could be avoided.
2. There have been many times when I saw such a post and wanted to respond to it but felt it best to wait until a new thread was created so I wasn't adding to that wasted time.

I have to say that for whatever reason I don't find it easy to detect the thread is old. I have to look carefully at the penultimate post to be sure it is a new thread. I usually recognize the new ones when I am being active since I see them appear so I have an inkling it may be a frankenthread. But sometimes by the time I see it several people have responded so the several previous posts have current dates and I miss that it is an old thread.

 

I don't think you understand my point. I am not discouraging reading the thread nor asking questions. I am saying that what the moderators have to do manually could be reduced if the person understood what was acceptable according to policy and was assisted in creating a new thread automatically including a reference to the old thread and the post they'd spent time writing.

On a separate note, I'd appreciate it if you would think twice about saying possibly insulting things because you are unhappy. It's both unpleasant and in this case factually incorrect. I have never insulted you, or even had warm words. I am not your enemy.

Where did I insult you????

 

Anything would be better than publicly telling the offender that they'd be banned if they did it again.

I joined this forum because someone with a question on something that I was an expert on asked a question that I found in a search on the internet. If it had been an old post, but unanswered, I would have been inclined to post an answer to their question on the chance that the information would still be helpful to them, or others with the same question.

If I had gotten threatened with a ban if I did it again, I wouldn't still be an active member.

 

Where did I insult you?

You didn't.

 

Keep in mind that the entry header for a post has the "joined" date in bold and a faint hint of when the post was made.
That's the date which my mind sees...

This is backwards. I think the post entry header should say who and when the post was made. Other information about the
poster should be lower priority. And always include the full date the post was made, not "18 minutes ago" or some such.

As an addition that phrase may add some value but it isn't a real date/time.

 

Anything would be better than publicly telling the offender that they'd be banned if they did it again.

I joined this forum because someone with a question on something that I was an expert on asked a question that I found in a search on the internet. If it had been an old post, but unanswered, I would have been inclined to post an answer to their question on the chance that the information would still be helpful to them, or others with the same question.

If I had gotten threatened with a ban if I did it again, I wouldn't still be an active member.

Let us examine the facts.

A thread was started on Jan 4, 2008 with a single question. The TS signed on to ask one question and has not been seen again.
There were four replies posted on the same day.

A new member joined on Mar 29, 2022, specifically to post a reply to the question to provide a useful answer to the question. The post was entered 4 minutes after signing on. The new member has not visited this site since. Most sincere new members would check out the scenery for a while before making a post giving advice. (It took me about a year after signing on before I made my first post.)

There is a warning given when someone attempts to necropost. It was ignored.

I have doubts about the member's genuine interest in becoming an asset to AAC forums. There must be thousands of potential members with valuable experience who have visited but chosen not to sign on to AAC. That is their choice.

One does not necropost just to display how clever they are that they have the answer.

 

I like to think moderators and administrators are wizards behind the curtain. Out here it's seamless but they're the ones responsible for giving us that experience.

 

The time spent along the years, talking about, condemning, explaining, frowning upon necroposting seems to me an excersise in futility provided that threads could be automatically closed in due time according to whatever rule is set in advance.

IOW: if for any chance you become the owner of the Ginza pyramid and you do not want visitors to enter through the West entrance, there are three options

1 Let them use that one and when already well inside, certified pyramid moderators will have to bring them out.

2 A warning a the entrance will have no effect either.

3 Close the door and lock it. Direct visitors to South access (only closed during sandstorms). This is where you start a new thread.

When I was interested in posting to an already closed thread in ETO, asked one mod to reopen it. That allowed me to go ahead with one of the most satisfactory projects with little fuss or complains.

 

just automatically lock any topic with no activity for some time, say 60 days or whatever. that way one can only reply to active discussions or start new topic and (optionally) reference older threads.

 

just automatically lock any topic with no activity for some time, say 60 days or whatever. that way one can only reply to active discussions or start new topic and (optionally) reference older threads.

AAC moderation team had already discussed this approach.
The consensus has been that necroposts are not overwhelming and can be handled on a case by case basis.

Of course, all necroposts are not treated the same way:

1) Thread revisited by TS - acceptable
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/1ghz-scope.177949/

2) Necroposter asking TS for additional information or update because they have the same or similar issue - questionable
For example:
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/...with-no-coupled-inductor.179534/#post-1721212

3) Necroposter seeking help in Technical Repair because they have the same or similar issue - this both a necropost and hijack, move to new thread

4) Necroposter posting new information, relevant or not - delete necropost, sometimes the thread is locked

 

On a separate note, I'd appreciate it if you would think twice about saying possibly insulting things because you are unhappy. It's both unpleasant and in this case factually incorrect. I have never insulted you, or even had warm words. I am not your enemy.

So let me see if I have this right. I, in your mind, am unhappy if I post something you don't like? It is insulting to point out that you seem to want to make forum changes to suit you? That last is in reference to you wanting some kind of change because your spell check has a problem. I have not insulted you yet, and don't consider you the enemy.

 

So let me see if I have this right. I, in your mind, am unhappy if I post something you don't like? It is insulting to point out that you seem to want to make forum changes to suit you? That last is in reference to you wanting some kind of change because your spell check has a problem. I have not insulted you yet, and don't consider you the enemy.

No, your response was addressing me and the last sentence has an emphatic reference to "KNOW EVERYTHING". I guess you suddenly started talking to someone else just then. I suppose I should have known that, my mistake.

 

No, your response was addressing me and the last sentence has an emphatic reference to "KNOW EVERYTHING". I guess you suddenly started talking to someone else just then. I suppose I should have known that, my mistake.

Why do you think it's all about you? Read my post again, especially the part you took as an insult, I'll even add to this post -

Those of us that don't KNOW EVERYTHING some times learn something new by reading a necroposted thread, because our interests change over time.

Did you even see the first 5 words?

 

Why do you think it's all about you? Read my post again, especially the part you took as an insult, I'll even add to this post -


Did you even see the first 5 words?

Did anyone watch TV Sunday night?