# Awake, My Unthread Minion!



## TarionzCousin (May 4, 2007)

I've bumped into more than my usual old/revived threads lately.

*How do you feel when an old thread is resurrected?*

1. I hate it. If the info were interesting enough, it would survive on its own.
2. It bugs me somewhat.
3. I don't care; I just like answering polls/other
4. It's okay if it is interesting.
5. I love it. It is refreshing and new.

_Note: _This poll/thread's title is from a phrase Pbartender wrote in a recently revived (for news update purposes) thread regarding Reaper plastic minis.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (May 4, 2007)

Very often, the old threads are very good old threads, in which case I'm thrilled.  Some I have to wonder what the raiser was thinking, though.


----------



## Ry (May 4, 2007)

I love it when old threads are brought back; there's so many great ideas out there that you can't catch them all the first time 'round.  I'd much rather see thread necromancy than somebody just starting up the same old discussion that had better answers in the past.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 4, 2007)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Very often, the old threads are very good old threads, in which case I'm thrilled.  Some I have to wonder what the raiser was thinking, though.



Mischief, quite often, is my guess. You'll see one or another person doing a whole spree of them at times.


----------



## frankthedm (May 4, 2007)

> I love it when old threads are brought back; there's so many great ideas out there that you can't catch them all the first time 'round. I'd much rather see thread necromancy than somebody just starting up the same old discussion that had better answers in the past.



Same here 







			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Mischief, quite often, is my guess. You'll see one or another person doing a whole spree of them at times.



 yep


----------



## Michael Silverbane (May 4, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Mischief, quite often, is my guess. You'll see one or another person doing a whole spree of them at times.




I can't believe that any of the upsdtanding posters here at ENWorld would engage in such tomfoolery!  You take that back!  

Later
silver


----------



## GAAAHHH (May 4, 2007)

I like it, as long as new ideas are being brought up.


----------



## Nifft (May 4, 2007)

It's okay if it's interesting and still topical.

Some issues have been solved, and I don't want to hear about them. But many have not been solved, and hearing about them is still cool. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Slife (May 4, 2007)

I predict that this thread will eventually be necromanced.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (May 4, 2007)

Michael Silverbane said:
			
		

> I can't believe that any of the upsdtanding posters here at ENWorld would engage in such tomfoolery!  You take that back!




You meant tomb-foolery, no doubt ... given the context of the thread! 

Back to the poll: Personally, I don't mind thread necromancy.  

What I really dislike is the posters who snydely comment to a poster above them something along the lines oh "You obviously didn't catch that this thread was started in 1675" ...

Okay ... I exagerated a bit on the date ...

but seriously.  I don't mind people raising threads.  But not everyone checks the dates of when posts are made.  So in a raised thread, why do people have to be jerks and point and laugh at th guy who answered a question raised 4 years ago and was never properly answered?  Sure, it is one thing to tell someone politely that they missed a thread necromancy.  But some people are just downright rude when someone makes such a simple mistake and doesn't realize a thread necromancy has occurred.


----------



## Galethorn (May 4, 2007)

Bugs me just a tiny, tiny bit. Upon logical examination, there isn't any good reason for it to, other than, perhaps, the strange feeling that the _resurrector_, some upstart interloper, has just rudely broken an ancient silence with a raucous cry of "hey, I like X too!", which, while a compelling mental image, isn't giving the resurrector the benefit of the doubt which most strangers deserve.


----------



## Yalius (May 4, 2007)

Slife said:
			
		

> I predict that this thread will eventually be necromanced.




I hope it is. I'd laugh my tail off if I see this thread some time in 2008 with a single post added that says, "I think it's a bad idea."


----------



## paradox42 (May 4, 2007)

Yalius said:
			
		

> I hope it is. I'd laugh my tail off if I see this thread some time in 2008 with a single post added that says, "I think it's a bad idea."



Did this thread just get pre-honged?


----------



## Lanefan (May 4, 2007)

I don't mind it, if only because if it's more than a year or so old I'd have missed it the first time round, so it's new to me. 

Lanefan


----------



## Graf (May 4, 2007)

I think it depends on how you view message boards

1. Entertaining Conversation
2. Rules/Information Repository

If it's a question like: What do people think of psionics? then it's really been talked to death, the original poster could easily just re-read old threads. But for them (and a lot of people on the boards) it's the interaction and discussion that's important.

EnWorld, is, relatively speaking, very "chatty". There are few people who respond to oft repeated questions with "use search n00b".
I like that but it's also partially a community-thing.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (May 4, 2007)

Doesn't bother me, as long as it as it is done tastefully.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (May 4, 2007)

As long as some new and useful information is added to the topic then it is ok by me.  If someone is deliberately resurrecting a thread just to say "Me too!" then it bugs me a little.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 4, 2007)

Thread necromancy is fine but I hate threads about whether it's fine or not. But threads about threads about necromancy are good. But threads about those threads are bad and wrong. Etcetera...


----------



## EyeontheMountain (May 4, 2007)

Frankly, it doesn't matter to me, a new thread or an old old thread, same topic.


----------



## arwink (May 4, 2007)

Sometimes it bugs me, sometimes it freaks me out, and sometimes its cool to see stuff coming back from the dead. The only time I really get irritated is when someone necromances a 'Hey, what should I do with my next session" type question a year or two later.


----------



## RFisher (May 4, 2007)

Ideally someone searches for a topic, finds an old thread about it, & reads it. Then if they have anything to add, they ressurect that thread. This is much, _much_ preferable (IMHO) to starting a new thread, rehashing the subject, & ending up with essentially a duplicate of an older thread.

Even a "hey, this was helpful" isn't so bad. Such a bump gives people who missed it the first time & who hadn't thought of searching for it a chance to see a good thread.

Displacement in time is one of the fundamental benefits of this medium.

Now, considering ENWorld:

You have to be a paying community supporter to access the search. While I can't disagree with that decision, I think it's unfortunate. The ability to search is a fundamental aspect of (IMHO) practical computerized information.

When it comes to long threads, it may sometimes be better to start a new thread that links to the old one. The potential for threads getting long here is greater than many other boards.

Then there's the archiving, which I don't really know anything about. I'm guessing archived threads can't be directly resurrected. (I wonder how much everyone being able to search might diminish the need to archive so often.)


----------



## jaerdaph (May 4, 2007)

It doesn't bother me at all, but it can sometimes be consfusing at first.

Is there some way a new post in an old thread (Say one that is three months or older) could get automatically tagged somehow as thread necromancy so folks know it's been awhile?


----------



## The Lost Muse (May 4, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> You have to be a paying community supporter to access the search. While I can't disagree with that decision, I think it's unfortunate. The ability to search is a fundamental aspect of (IMHO) practical computerized information.




I just do an advanced Google Search when I want to find something that's more than a few days old. It usually works like a charm, you just have to specify that you only want results from enworld.org


----------



## Darkness (May 4, 2007)

Timmundo said:
			
		

> I just do an advanced Google Search when I want to find something that's more than a few days old. It usually works like a charm, you just have to specify that you only want results from enworld.org



 Also, if you don't want to use advanced search, just add site:enworld.org to your search terms.


----------



## Pbartender (May 4, 2007)

TarionzCousin said:
			
		

> _Note: _This poll/thread's title is from a phrase Pbartender wrote in a recently revived (for news update purposes) thread regarding Reaper plastic minis.




I'm flattered...    


Personally, I have no problem bringing back old threads, so long as it serves a purpose.

In my case, the thread I reanimated wasn't exceptionally old, the information I found directly answered questions left unanswered in the thread, and the information by itself didn't seem worthy of an entirely new thread.  

In all honesty, in all the years I've been posting here, I think it's the first time I've brought back a thread from the dead.


----------



## jonesy (May 4, 2007)

I don't mind if it's interesting,

*and* if there isn't a new thread about the subject already.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (May 4, 2007)

arwink said:
			
		

> Sometimes it bugs me, sometimes it freaks me out, and sometimes its cool to see stuff coming back from the dead. The only time I really get irritated is when someone necromances a 'Hey, what should I do with my next session" type question a year or two later.



QFT. And exactly what I mean by taste.


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 4, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> I'm flattered...
> 
> 
> Personally, I have no problem bringing back old threads, so long as it serves a purpose.
> ...



Yeah, I thought it was an exceptionally witty phrase. 

Your thread was only a month or two old, and you had good info. I didn't mean to imply anything other than that I found the phrase funny and appropriate.


----------



## BOZ (May 9, 2007)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Some I have to wonder what the raiser was thinking, though.




practicing on some worthless ones to get the hang of it?  

sometimes, i won't be on for a week or so, so i go and respond to threads that have been dead for a few days already... like this one.    so i'm guilty of that at least.

and of course, i like to keep my necromancy skills sharpened generally.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (May 9, 2007)

BOZ said:
			
		

> sometimes, i won't be on for a week or so, so i go and respond to threads that have been dead for a few days already... like this one.    so i'm guilty of that at least.
> .




Yeah, but that's not thread necromancy in my book.  That's barely thread resuscitation.

For true thread necromancy to happen, it's gotta be six months or more in my book.  And ideally, I'd like it to have a date that ends in a different number than the current year.  [Now fair calling thread necromancy on January 1, either!  ]


----------



## BOZ (May 9, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> For true thread necromancy to happen, it's gotta be six months or more in my book.




oh, i've done plenty of that too.


----------



## Bad Paper (May 14, 2007)

I like the necromancy because I am relatively new here, particularly to anything other than the Rules forum.  For at least a year I never left Rules.  So every once in a while, someone pulls up a thread that rocks my socks, and I subscribe, lest it disappear again.

What irritates me are the thread necros to things like 3.0 _haste_ threads.  Granted, some people still play 3.0, but arg, please pay attention to the version.


----------

