Pros and Cons of Necrobumping

[makemeunreal]

Looks like we've just set a new record for Necrobumping.
See the thread here: viewtopic.php?t=771
But for real, is Necrobumping really that big of a problem? One of the great advantages of forums over Discord is that the content is more organized and they actually appear in Internet searches.

What if someone adds useful information to one of these old threads? That's the point of forums after all...
Also. I tried to look a totally generic question up and look where the first link directs to...

[Shrimp]

That thread is almost old enough to drive!

[makemeunreal]

xD That literally made me cry.
But still. Can Necrobumping be an okay thing to do if you add valuable information to an unanswered question? These topics can pop up in searches very easily as you see.
I want to emphasize on the fact that this topic has no intention to offend anyone.

[TankBeef]

I have some simple questions about it. If replying to threads of a certain age is not allowed, then why are they not just simply locked? Or moved to an "old threads archive"? Maybe even with a warning that says something like "This is an old thread. Replies are not allowed".

[OjitroC]

Necrobumping is allowed - the House Rules are pretty clear

11. Do NOT post in threads which are 3 months old or older ("necrobumping"), unless you have something useful to add or a pertinent question to make.

There will, of course, be differing views on what is useful or what is a pertinent question. Although it does cause work for the admins, the present approach seems to work OK - a thread is closed if, in the opinion of the admins, the necrobump adds nothing of value to a dead (or in some recent cases, a long dead) thread.

A warning about old threads would be useful though - alerting people to look at the last posting date and asking them to reflect if they really do have something that is important enough to be posted to an old thread.

[a9902957@nepwk.com]

Indeed, what is supposedly negative about it anyway?
Silly rule IMO, still a rule here, though.

Rumour has it it is for admins to feel needed and special here once in a while.

[OjitroC]

Indeed, what is supposedly negative about it anyway?

Answering specific questions from OPs who are no longer active on this forum. In the case noted by MMU, the thread is 15 years old and the OP last visited/logged into the forum about a couple of weeks after making the post. This is not uncommon and I think the last couple of necrobumps were of threads started by OPs who had last been on the forum a decade or more ago.

So it's basically a waste of time (the original poster won't see the information and is no longer interested in it) and a waste of space (unless new information is posted that is not widely known and is likely to be of interest to reasonably wide audience - in the case noted by MMU the question had been answered by the first reply to the question and the latest post did not add anything that those running servers are unaware of).

In my view the rule makes sense - what's the point in bumping an old thread and not adding useful information or asking a pertinent question? The only other exception could be to try to get a reply to a question which has not been answered.

[TankBeef]

Indeed, what is supposedly negative about it anyway?

Answering specific questions from OPs who are no longer active on this forum. In the case noted by MMU, the thread is 15 years old and the OP last visited/logged into the forum about a couple of weeks after making the post. This is not uncommon and I think the last couple of necrobumps were of threads started by OPs who had last been on the forum a decade or more ago.

So it's basically a waste of time (the original poster won't see the information and is no longer interested in it) and a waste of space (unless new information is posted that is not widely known and is likely to be of interest to reasonably wide audience - in the case noted by MMU the question had been answered by the first reply to the question and the latest post did not add anything that those running servers are unaware of).

In my view the rule makes sense - what's the point in bumping an old thread and not adding useful information or asking a pertinent question? The only other exception could be to try to get a reply to a question which has not been answered.

I understand and I agree. But as posted before, why not lock 3 month + threads then? Or move them to an archived folder? Or pop up a warning?
I see people getting constantly annoyed about the necrobumps, but that being the case, one should then take extra measures. Maybe.

[OjitroC]

I understand and I agree. But as posted before, why not lock 3 month + threads then? Or move them to an archived folder? Or pop up a warning?
I see people getting constantly annoyed about the necrobumps, but that being the case, one should then take extra measures. Maybe.

Looking at some 3+ months old threads, there are, for example, maps which could be updated in the same thread (or comments on bugs etc posted) or threads into which an OP posts 'new stuff' irregularly over a long period of time (like Barbie's UT Stuff by Barbie thread). If these were locked then a poster would need to contact an admin to unlock the thread - possible of course but too much hassle for poster and admins?

Archiving old threads would mean that about 928 pages (947 total pages - c19 or 20 'recent' threads) would be archived - this would be undesirable and possibly unworkable?

Popping up a warning would be the best way to go if action is needed - though my view FWIW is that the current situation is OK (provided, of course, it is OK with the admins).

[makemeunreal]

Necrobumping is allowed - the House Rules are pretty clear

11. Do NOT post in threads which are 3 months old or older ("necrobumping"), unless you have something useful to add or a pertinent question to make.

There will, of course, be differing views on what is useful or what is a pertinent question. Although it does cause work for the admins, the present approach seems to work OK - a thread is closed if, in the opinion of the admins, the necrobump adds nothing of value to a dead (or in some recent cases, a long dead) thread.

A warning about old threads would be useful though - alerting people to look at the last posting date and asking them to reflect if they really do have something that is important enough to be posted to an old thread.

That's a fine point of view, and (afaik) the admins here do exactly like that.

[Feralidragon]

Besides the reasons people mentioned here, necrobumping is generally bad because it takes something that has since expired to time and makes it appear fresh.

What I mean with this is that, whenever someone necrobumps a thread, a lot of people do not really realize it was necrobumped and often come to the wrong conclusion that all the previous posts in the thread are themselves as recent as the latest one, because that's usually what happens in a normal thread.

This means that even though most people in that topic may not even be active anymore, people doing the posting won't realize that and assume they're active people right now.
They will also assume that whichever info there is up to date, although that is likely to not be the case anymore.

And those who actually pay attention, realize the necrobump itself and cannot help but refer to that exact fact and quickly lose interest in the thread altogether, along with everyone else who were "fooled" by the fake freshness of the content.

Furthermore, people aren't the only ones fooled by this: search engines crawling the forum will think the pages are recent as well, and give then unwarranted relevance in search results.

If this happens once in a while it's not the end of the world, but we've had here members that will suddenly go on a necrobumping spree for some reason, and all of a sudden we get half of the front page with threads that may be up to a decade old already (or more), which is why it is usually stopped as soon as it starts.

As for why there isn't a message or something, or some other automated mechanism to deal with this, one thing everyone needs to remember is that this forum is paid for regularly, so it remains online for everyone, but maintenance is not something that is usually done very often, especially when it comes to add new features or setting up configurations.

If you want to have something done in this regard, just create a thread in the Suggestions, Criticism, Feedback section about it, and maybe something might actually get done later on.
This is exactly how the double posting issue was addressed.

[OjitroC]

Of the last 100 threads in which there have been posts, the first post was made more than 3 months earlier than the date of the last post in 47 cases. Of these 47 only 2 were necrobumps resulting in the closure of the thread - so 45 threads have been legitimately necrobumped.

As a matter of interest, these are the threads that are/were more than 3 months old

Spoiler

UT Videos/movies,
XBrowser,
UnrealArchive.org,
Dr.Pikko's [X] Series,
X Vehicles,
FragScoreBoard,
FragChat,
25th Anniversary of UT,
Active Forums,
XVehicles - Highly Unrealistic,
Screenshots for fun,
Rules for Playing UT not entirely serious,
officially Unofficial rules,
Rules for playing UT99 online silly version,
House Rules!?!,
Epic Turning off Master servers,
MapChecker,
Botpathing request thread,
Smart Stock Bots mutator,
Mutator,
Gift from Decoration for MH,
Screenshots,
VoteSys,
MapVoteX112,
Smart Weapons Fully Loaded,
ChatDiamond,
UTChat 27,
Guess Name of Map,
UTCmds,
UED Add Ons,
Full List of UT99.org mappacks,
UT on new hardware,
Soundz Thread,
DotOutline crosshair,
Mind Reader,
Reduce Tick mutator,
SmartScoreboard,
FixTeamsSize mutator,
Monster Hunt 613,
6 individual Map threads with updates/comments

So there is a large number of long-running threads, many with mods/mutators that are actively but irregularly updated and/or commented on.

I put this out there to suggest that (a) perhaps necrobumping is not as big an issue as it may appear to be and (b) any solution to the issue would need to have regard to legitimate necrobumping. Perhaps the pertinent factor is not simply the date of the original post but also the date of the last post - coupled with the frequency of posting in a thread?

[papercoffee]

If the last post is older than 3 month THEN you should consider not to post in it.
We might think of a solution ...the possibility of a warning system was discussed many month ago but because the frequencies of necro bumps was so low the staff forgot about it.

Edit--------------------------------------
Maybe we should change the rules to emphasise this.

[OjitroC]

Perhaps monitor the situation over the next 6 months or so - keeping a count of threads closed because of illegitimate necrobumps? Then decide whether or not it is worthwhile taking action?

My count above indicates an average of 1 illegitimate necrobump per month (the last 100 threads with posts covers the period from about 26 April so roughly 2 months up to the present - with 2 necrobump closures in that period).

If the last post is older than 3 month THEN you should consider not to post in it.

Maybe we should change the rules to emphasise this.

That would, indeed, be a good idea.

[papercoffee]

I changed rule 11 for now ...let's see how it'll work.
House Rules