Anonymous wrote:I see this all the time. There's a thread that's 4-5 years old in which someone asked a question that was hotly debated. No one posts for years. Then suddenly someone posts with some random response dredging it all up again. People start posting with answers that are totally pointless because the OP has moved on with life. It usually seems like the person who suddenly posted it is either a sh*t-stirrer generally, or is someone who has an axe to grind about a particular issue and found the thread through a google search on their axe-grinding topic.
It really is exhausting and brings down the quality of the discourse on this site. Is there any reason why you don't just lock a thread that has had no new posts in over a year? If someone wants to make a follow-up post, they can always link the original thread for reference, but then no one is misled into thinking that the original question is still a live issue, and people don't have to re-read many pages worth of posts the date back to the Obama administration before responding.

Seriously!? You must be exhausted all the time in life then.

No matter what Jeff does, someone will complain.

Personally, I try to do a search before I start a new topic because if I simply start a new post some snarky person will tell me there was already a thread about my topic - and it was 10 years ago. I don't want advice from 10 years ago, I want current commentary on my topic.

Then if I do find old posts about my question and I revive the thread someone will invariably comment "you dredged up a 4 year old thread for this?"

Sometimes it can be helpful to the discussion. For example, I was up in the middle of the night with a screaming, sobbing, freaking out kid whose butt itched so bad she was crying.

Not only did I find some solutions in the (very long) tread, but I also laughed out loud at some of the responses.

I also re-upped it b/c I found some new information and then others added other funny things and gross pictures.

DCUM gold!

It's gross but if you need to be entertained and have a strong stomach, I offer this:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/255/467095.page

Jeff, I remember you were considering a different color for older threads. Would this still be an option?

Anonymous wrote:I love when the old threads pop up! If the only purpose of forums was to help the OP I don’t think they’d be as popular. Those old threads are often highly entertaining ones that I missed the first time around.

Yep.

I love when the old threads pop up! If the only purpose of forums was to help the OP I don’t think they’d be as popular. Those old threads are often highly entertaining ones that I missed the first time around.

Couldn’t you automate it though? Here’s a random example, although this isn’t the most egregious:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/30/361868.page

I have considerably bigger fish to fry than this one.

I see this all the time. There's a thread that's 4-5 years old in which someone asked a question that was hotly debated. No one posts for years. Then suddenly someone posts with some random response dredging it all up again. People start posting with answers that are totally pointless because the OP has moved on with life. It usually seems like the person who suddenly posted it is either a sh*t-stirrer generally, or is someone who has an axe to grind about a particular issue and found the thread through a google search on their axe-grinding topic.
It really is exhausting and brings down the quality of the discourse on this site. Is there any reason why you don't just lock a thread that has had no new posts in over a year? If someone wants to make a follow-up post, they can always link the original thread for reference, but then no one is misled into thinking that the original question is still a live issue, and people don't have to re-read many pages worth of posts the date back to the Obama administration before responding.