paul wheaton wrote:
So .... I suppose there can be a thread that is seven years old and is just as valid today as it was seven years ago. Therefore, it is not a zombie. And there can be a thread from three months ago that is old news - that bug isn't there anymore. So the thread is a zombie. Of course, it doesn't hurt to reply and say "they fixed that bug a couple of months ago." and when you reply, there could be folks subscribed to that thread that would be glad to know that.
. . . there is no need to keep pushing [a zombie] post to the top of the list in the forums by adding extra replies to your original reply. In fact, doing so might be considered counterproductive because:
* The extra posts generally do not add anything to the post, and might irritate the reader (and anything that irritates the reader might cause them to ignore the post and move on to another post).
* Some of the gurus on this site occassionaly jump into different forums, looking for posts which have zero replies - these are the ones that might be more challenging. If you [resurrected a zombie rather than posting a new topic], they will not even look at your topic.
Take into account, however, that if you post a new question in someone else's topic, you are hijacking the topic and that isn't nice - especially if the question of the original poster isn't answered yet. Just start your own topic instead of hijacking someone else's.
paul wheaton wrote:So if somebody adds some useless fluff to an old thread and a moderator deletes the fluff, then the thread will go back to being old.
more often than not the new poster's problem has nuances that deserve their own thread.
Campbell Ritchie wrote:Another example of "waking the zombies" but I didn't quote the FAQ