Someone is digging up old, dead threads.
Warning: Zombie Threads
|by Anonymous||reply 25||11/19/2012|
nothing wrong with older threads
|by Anonymous||reply 1||11/16/2012|
They are dead for a reason.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||11/16/2012|
The people who are doing this are folks who want to start threads but don't want to pay $18, so they use the improved search function to find old threads about the subjects they want, and bump them.
Webbie could eliminate this problem and encorage more memberships by deleting threads after say six months or so.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||11/16/2012|
I enjoy reading the old threads
|by Anonymous||reply 4||11/16/2012|
And I am enjoying every one of them so far.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||11/16/2012|
Gee thanks for pointing out the OBVIOUS.
Do you want to remind all the posters to look both ways before they cross the street and that Obama won reelection too?
|by Anonymous||reply 6||11/16/2012|
Well, R6, sometimes around here we point out the OBVIOUS as a means of inviting discussion of it. I know it can be tricky.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||11/17/2012|
The zombie threads seem to have themes, which is new. One day the theme was Russia, the next it was obits. What next, Denmark?
|by Anonymous||reply 8||11/17/2012|
I noticed that too, R8. I'd hated going through the loss of Donna Summer again.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||11/17/2012|
Rick Gains for President
|by Anonymous||reply 10||11/17/2012|
OK neurotics, how about all threads are deleted after one post. It gets old after the opinion has been stated.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||11/17/2012|
You're right. Let's continue to discuss to death Petraeus, Colton Haynes, and that time Jackie Collins said Matt Bomer was too gay to play Superman just because those threads were posted somewhat recently.
What's wrong with old threads being bumped if they're interesting?
|by Anonymous||reply 12||11/17/2012|
They WERE interesting. They died because no one had anything more to say. Dragging them up again wastes the time of most people here who saw or passed on the thread when it was fresh. If there is something new to say about a topic covered by a 16-month-old dead thread, it's best to start a new thread. Most people don't check the bottom of old threads that have been abandoned.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||11/17/2012|
"Most people don't check the bottom of old threads that have been abandoned."
I do. I also said Boo-urns.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||11/17/2012|
The person who bumps those threads don't add anything to the topic. They either insult a poster, who hasn't been on that thread in over a year or just put Bump.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||11/17/2012|
Consider what threads the zombie posts bury and you will find a QUEEN WITH A SECRET.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||11/17/2012|
I wish someone would bump some old decent gossip/Hollywood threads.
I did that with the David Fincher thread a couple of times, and it started a whole new series of interesting replies.
I don't think the 'Is he gay, or a straight Svengali with teenage girls?' question was ever settled though.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||11/17/2012|
[quote] If there is something new to say about a topic covered by a 16-month-old dead thread, it's best to start a new thread.
No. Worse than bumping an old thread is an egocentric reproduction.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||11/17/2012|
There is some gossip of a rapey nature in the celebrity rape victims thread r17
|by Anonymous||reply 19||11/17/2012|
OMG someone call the governments!
|by Anonymous||reply 20||11/17/2012|
r18--I said "if there is something new to say."
|by Anonymous||reply 21||11/17/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 22||11/18/2012|
You meant that ironically, didn't you, R22?
|by Anonymous||reply 23||11/18/2012|
Out of curiosity I trolldar'd the person who just bumped a 2010 thread. Then I went to look in some other old threads that were recently bumped. Surprise, surprise. It's one person who is doing this.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||11/18/2012|
Which is why I said "someone" is doing it.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||11/19/2012|