# Why do people reply to threads 5+ years ago?



## nerwin (Jul 2, 2017)

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 (Jul 2, 2017)

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 (Jul 2, 2017)

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


----------



## zombiesniper (Jul 2, 2017)

They're a Thread Necromancer!


----------



## petrochemist (Jul 3, 2017)

Overread said:


> 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 (Jul 3, 2017)

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


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 3, 2017)

nerwin said:


> 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 (Jul 3, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > 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've done that hehe.


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 3, 2017)

nerwin said:


> I've done that hehe.



Unfortunately so have I


----------



## Peeb (Jul 3, 2017)

Me three!


----------



## Overread (Jul 4, 2017)

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 (Jul 4, 2017)

nerwin said:


> 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.





Designer said:


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





zombiesniper said:


> They're a Thread Necromancer!





petrochemist said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Reasons include:
> ...





Overread said:


> 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 (Jul 4, 2017)

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


----------



## table1349 (Jul 4, 2017)




----------



## petrochemist (Jul 5, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> 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.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 5, 2017)

They search,
they find,
and they post
without checking when the last post date was.

Come back in 5 years to this thread ...


----------



## table1349 (Jul 5, 2017)

petrochemist said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 142681
> ...


It's called synesthesia, however you need to re-read the text for in this case it is not possible since *9* is not a color.


----------



## petrochemist (Jul 5, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> petrochemist said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...


No I spotted that, you have to reread the last half (underlined in the quote above) of my sentence.

It may be that there has never been a case of anyone having both links between odor & color and number and color. Despite the number of times my eldest has quoted variants of your post I don't think I've ever met anyone with synesthesia.

But then again I can't see why reviving old threads should always draw gasps of Zombie posting horror either.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 5, 2017)

Good article on the 6 forms of synesthesia:  Synesthesia: Tasting Words, Seeing Sounds, Hearing Colours And More


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 5, 2017)

petrochemist said:


> ...
> 
> But then again I can't see why reviving old threads should always draw gasps of Zombie posting horror either.


I think most of the Zombie horror occurs when the new poster is trying to inform the OP about making a certain decision; which probably occurred 5 years ago.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 5, 2017)

I can't smell the number 9, but I can hear it.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 5, 2017)

480sparky said:


> I can't smell the number 9, but I can hear it.


I can count it with 8 fingers,
or .. well ..... 9 fingers


----------



## Manual_Focus (Jul 5, 2017)

Overread said:


> 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
> ...




Thx for this "up to date" fourm. And yes to 1 and 3 paragraphs.  But so many on all these sites are flooded with the 'regulars'.  And why wouldn't anyone want to comment on past golden gems.  Some get hung up on the here and now topics.  All the new changes of the day.  Many new to this site like myself are veiwing this from a small smart phone screen and prefer not to have a shoe box devise like so many carry around today on their hip.  I have a computer for this type of surfing.  But like many, I'm on the go and away from home and killing time to learn more of this field is always interesting.
So forgive me for not being up on today's topic of interest and looking back in the past.  
So I guess what should be done is all topics deleted after a month.  Force others to come up with new thoughts and interests!!!


----------



## Manual_Focus (Jul 5, 2017)

Designer said:


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



All of these sites are different, all!!   Give the newbies time to adjust it.  I haven't been on this site since the creation of dirt was made.  Just two days ago.  Really!  Already theres a misunderstandings in just two days.  Wow!


----------



## Designer (Jul 5, 2017)

Manual_Focus said:


> Already theres a misunderstandings in just two days.  Wow!


Marvel as the mood strikes you, but I was merely ANSWERING the OP's QUESTION.  If that irritates you, then I'll probably keep on ANSWERING Questions.


----------



## Manual_Focus (Jul 5, 2017)

Hey theres no beef.  Just like eveyone else,  I was just sharing a thought.  Do you need a hug?


----------



## table1349 (Jul 5, 2017)

snowbear said:


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


That could be this months challenge, see who can dig up the oldest thread.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 5, 2017)

The challenge should be ... see who can dig up the oldest thread and get a reply from the OP !!


----------



## Manual_Focus (Jul 5, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


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




I like it!


----------



## nerwin (Jul 5, 2017)

I wonder who is the oldest and active member? Is it @Derrel?


----------



## Designer (Jul 5, 2017)

nerwin said:


> I wonder who is the oldest and active member? Is it @Derrel?


Oldest (earliest) and most active might not be the same person.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 5, 2017)

And no reviving your own thread !!


----------



## nerwin (Jul 5, 2017)

Designer said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder who is the oldest and active member? Is it @Derrel?
> ...



That's why I said the oldest active member. Not the oldest registered member, but the oldest registered member who is still active today if that makes any sense. I was just curious.


----------



## Designer (Jul 5, 2017)

nerwin said:


> I was just curious.


I just checked out "notable members", and saw that my username is listed there.  That means I need to take a hiatus from posting.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 5, 2017)

Hmm, I've been here since 2008


----------



## nerwin (Jul 5, 2017)

The sad thing is I've been here since 2015 and I'm inching near 3,000 posts. Yeah. I don't have a life.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 5, 2017)

Hmm, any chance we can wake up Big Mike ?
He's been here since 2003


----------



## table1349 (Jul 5, 2017)

dxqcanada said:


> And no reviving your own thread !!


Party Pooper.  You said that because I have been here since 2006.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 5, 2017)

Hello from Vancouver Island, BC

The challenge begins ... yeah, for some sad reason I did it.


----------



## snowbear (Jul 5, 2017)

Brand new TPF on-line store!

A little older


----------



## snowbear (Jul 5, 2017)

As far as the oldest member, my money is on @Gary A. or @gryphonslair99.  
Maybe not the longest membership, but in age . . .


----------



## limr (Jul 5, 2017)

dxqcanada said:


> Hello from Vancouver Island, BC
> 
> The challenge begins ... yeah, for some sad reason I did it.



One internet to you, sir!


----------



## snowbear (Jul 5, 2017)

dxqcanada said:


> The challenge should be ... see who can dig up the oldest thread and get a reply from the OP !!


You've probably got that one.


----------



## terri (Jul 5, 2017)

Good grief, kids.   Run outside and play!


----------



## snowbear (Jul 5, 2017)

terri said:


> Good grief, kids.   Run outside and play!


But it's dark out there; not dark enough to process film and prints, but dark.


----------



## Manual_Focus (Jul 5, 2017)

nerwin said:


> I wonder who is the oldest and active member? Is it @Derrel?



Lets saw em in half and count the rings


----------



## Manual_Focus (Jul 5, 2017)

terri said:


> Good grief, kids.   Run outside and play!




Did someone say playtime?  I just finished my milk and Im good now.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 5, 2017)

Well since "Mom" is being all cranky how about we: The 45 greatest prank phone calls of all time


----------



## Manual_Focus (Jul 5, 2017)

snowbear said:


> As far as the oldest member, my money is on @Gary A. or @gryphonslair99.
> Maybe not the longest membership, but in age . . .





snowbear said:


> As far as the oldest member, my money is on @Gary A. or @gryphonslair99.
> Maybe not the longest membership, but in age . . .



Give me few days and we might have it.


----------



## nerwin (Jul 5, 2017)

terri said:


> Good grief, kids.   Run outside and play!



The harsh light isn't very good. We only go out when it's golden hour!


----------



## Manual_Focus (Jul 5, 2017)

When you do,  make sure u r wearing a filter.


----------



## nerwin (Jul 5, 2017)

Yeah, I always wear my neutual density jacket. My ultra vilot coat collects dust now.


----------



## pez (Jul 6, 2017)

mental note: post in this thread in July of 2025, if there is still an internet and a civilization.


----------



## Overread (Jul 6, 2017)

Mental note - remember to start moderators discussion on if we can ban for future offences


----------



## wallym (Jul 6, 2017)

Well, I just did it.  If you are trying to help the community, WGAF when it was posted, you know? I dont know if that is an acronym, but u can figure it out.


----------



## snowbear (Jul 6, 2017)




----------



## Overread (Jul 6, 2017)

I can't argue with Picard! 



wallym said:


> Well, I just did it.  If you are trying to help the community, WGAF when it was posted, you know? I dont know if that is an acronym, but u can figure it out.



The community cares - and without getting into a long drawn out description, the moderating team also cares. 

I would thus remind users to not keep bumping old threads. Please keep things current and focus your energies on helping those members who are with us today. Forums are not just an information resource; its a social gathering (all be it in text format).


----------



## terri (Jul 6, 2017)

wallym said:


> Well, I just did it.  If you are trying to help the community, WGAF when it was posted, you know? I dont know if that is an acronym, but u can figure it out.


Yeah, we figured it out.        

_Well, I just did it.     _Actually, there is no evidence to show that now.    You can figure it out.


----------

