Why do people reply to threads 5+ years ago?

[nerwin]

Why do so many respond to threads that have been inactive for 5+ years? It's usually a newly registered users too. It's also the first and only post from that user.

I just find it odd.

 

[Overread]

Reasons include:

1) The person used the SEARCH feature and found thread(s) that interested them. Mistakenly they forgot to check the date and make their post. Easily done and we've all done it. It's easier done when you're new because when you've been around a while you recognise people posting so a whole thread with no one you recognise (or if you've been around long enough all "oldies" posting) it gives you a bit of a heads up that it might be an old post.
Posting from tablets/phones/apps can also make this easier done because you don't have as big a screen so the post dates are more obscured

2) The person isn't interested in joining the site and is a spambot. Spambots (which are oft actual users if not that experienced in English) often just search for things relevant to their ad and then post into the thread to deliver their ad.
Sometimes they might post a series of normal posts to make themselves appear more "normal".
Sometimes their delivery also fails so their post doesn't have the embedded ad link; or their ad link is hidden in their signature or profile details instead.

3) The person is quite new to forums and isn't aware of how to behave and does it in error. You can oft see this from people who will find a thread similar to what they want to talk about and then they post in that with a post that in effect really should be used to start a new thread.
This is simply a very new-to the internet error and most people overcome it quickly.

 

[Designer]

They haven't yet learned to look at the posting date.

 

[zombiesniper]

They're a Thread Necromancer!

 

[petrochemist]

Reasons include:

1) The person used the SEARCH feature and found thread(s) that interested them. Mistakenly they forgot to check the date and make their post. Easily done and we've all done it. It's easier done when you're new because when you've been around a while you recognise people posting so a whole thread with no one you recognise (or if you've been around long enough all "oldies" posting) it gives you a bit of a heads up that it might be an old post.
Posting from tablets/phones/apps can also make this easier done because you don't have as big a screen so the post dates are more obscured

When the original thread failed to get an answer and the problem is relevant to the new poster, it can be easier to revive an old thread to see if a solution has since been found (or to give a long awaited insight if the thread is obscure enough in subject), rather than start a new thread. Old threads can be a very useful source of information frequently coming up in Google searches. Where this is the case I can't understand some peoples concern over 'zombie threads'.

Where the OP was asking which body was best 3 years ago then the thread is indeed of no further relevance, as these things change on a much quicker basis! Ideally the forum software would give a pop up message to point out the age of the thread which would have to be accepted before writing the reply.

Frequent visitors may just use the 'new posts' listing to see what's new, so would only come across old posts if someone else has revived them. It's not too uncommon for several replies to be made before the age or the OP is spotted.

 

[jcdeboever]

I do it occasionally because it shows up in the timeline and I don't think of zombies all the time.

 

[smoke665]

Why do so many respond to threads that have been inactive for 5+ years? It's usually a newly registered users too. It's also the first and only post from that user.

I just find it odd.

I find it even odder that so many older members (who know to check the date) will reply to that newby error and perpetuate the zombie walk for several more posts.

 

[nerwin]

Why do so many respond to threads that have been inactive for 5+ years? It's usually a newly registered users too. It's also the first and only post from that user.

I just find it odd.

I find it even odder that so many older members (who know to check the date) will reply to that newby error and perpetuate the zombie walk for several more posts.

I've done that hehe.

 

[smoke665]

I've done that hehe.

Unfortunately so have I

 

[Peeb]

Me three!

 

[Overread]

Aye perpetuating is easily done because many people onyl read the newest post in a thread. In shorter (less than one page) most people do catch the first few posts as well; but many people will only read the last few in a very long thread. So any longer thread that's brought back to life can end up living for a while because no one notices that the earlier part of the discussion finished a few years ago.


What will get really amusing is in a few more years when there are threads older than some members newly joining! Imagine that! Of course if forums last and last and last (and if data storage gets bigger and cheaper etc...) then it could be well into the future that forums are studied by archaeologists! (Or technoarchaeologists

 

[Derrel]

Why do so many respond to threads that have been inactive for 5+ years? It's usually a newly registered users too. It's also the first and only post from that user.

I just find it odd.

They haven't yet learned to look at the posting date.

They're a Thread Necromancer!

Reasons include:

1) The person used the SEARCH feature and found thread(s) that interested them. Mistakenly they forgot to check the date and make their post. Easily done and we've all done it. It's easier done when you're new because when you've been around a while you recognise people posting so a whole thread with no one you recognise (or if you've been around long enough all "oldies" posting) it gives you a bit of a heads up that it might be an old post.
Posting from tablets/phones/apps can also make this easier done because you don't have as big a screen so the post dates are more obscured

When the original thread failed to get an answer and the problem is relevant to the new poster, it can be easier to revive an old thread to see if a solution has since been found (or to give a long awaited insight if the thread is obscure enough in subject), rather than start a new thread. Old threads can be a very useful source of information frequently coming up in Google searches. Where this is the case I can't understand some peoples concern over 'zombie threads'.

Where the OP was asking which body was best 3 years ago then the thread is indeed of no further relevance, as these things change on a much quicker basis! Ideally the forum software would give a pop up message to point out the age of the thread which would have to be accepted before writing the reply.

Frequent visitors may just use the 'new posts' listing to see what's new, so would only come across old posts if someone else has revived them. It's not too uncommon for several replies to be made before the age or the OP is spotted.

Aye perpetuating is easily done because many people onyl read the newest post in a thread. In shorter (less than one page) most people do catch the first few posts as well; but many people will only read the last few in a very long thread. So any longer thread that's brought back to life can end up living for a while because no one notices that the earlier part of the discussion finished a few years ago.


What will get really amusing is in a few more years when there are threads older than some members newly joining! Imagine that! Of course if forums last and last and last (and if data storage gets bigger and cheaper etc...) then it could be well into the future that forums are studied by archaeologists! (Or technoarchaeologists

Pretty much got it ALL covered there! Some excellent comments, including overread's noting that in long,multi-page threads, it's easy to see only new material and fail to see the origin of a thread might be years in the past.

I agree, if a new poster has an issue, and a search turns up a pre-existing thread, that ADDING NEW material to the discussion can be the right course of action; it keeps discussions in one location, and makes search results more valid. For example, on some subjects, years-old posts could have great information. Imagine threads about malfunctioning Canon AE-1 shutters, or the nuances of older model Nikon speedlights; posts that are five to even fifteen years old could be very relevant, even in 2017! It makes sense to keep some topics contained within threads that span years' worth of time.

I the earlier days of the internet, it was considered BAD form to start a NEW thread, if there was an already-existing thread on a board. And to an extent, some of the older moderatoirs here on TPF were somewhat insistent that in the photo-based, theme-based threads, that we keep using the old, pre-exisiting posts as the vehicle for newer and newerr pictures. We STILL do that, on the threads like "the color orange" and "abstract"...I saw one thread that originated back in 2004, still active here!

 

[snowbear]

I've been considering randomly responding to ten-year-old threads, just for the thrill.

 

[table1349]

 

[petrochemist]

View attachment 142681

There are people with odd synaptic links where that might be possible!
Some associate colors & smells, and I think I've heard of cases where numbers have associated colors too.

I'm curious as to if the people concerned have related links is nine always red for instance, or does each example have it's own unique identifications.