3w ago

Valve Jannies with necrodisease, kill top google result threads with no answer

So irritating, you find exactly the thread about your issue,

You ask for the answer, but they close it instead !!

So everyone else is going to end up here, with no voice, no way to even say "hey you jannie why you'd close are thread, do you have a learning disability" ?

How often do you end up mute in those top threads.

And they wonder why public forums are dying !

16 comments

Just make a new post asking the same thing, instead of trying to revive a post that was retired EIGHT years ago.
- Nobody on google is going to find the answer now, try again.
  Nobody from google is going to be able to post the solution if they have it.
  
  So? That's googles problem to index search results better. If that eight year old thread was any good, you wouldn't have needed to revive it to ask for the solution anyway.
I honestly don't know why reviving threads is so bad. If there's a place that has the conversation you need, then what is so bad about it? Stackoverflow I get if you're going off topic or if you need to start a new one for a new problem, but it makes sense to me if you have the same issue and found an issue - or even better a solution to a years old problem. Why as a moderator would you be against that?
- I think it's a habit, of forum dwellers, sitting in the chronological view, pressing that F5 button for some dopamine, for something new, then an old thread shows up and they get very uppity, they report, the mods are annoyed, they don't care, they close the thread it increases their action quota key performance indicator, none of the people involved even know what google had to do with it, they think all other forum users are like them, refreshing that post chronological order, not there to find answers but waiting for novel entertaining question, not "old settled stuff from 8 years ago". And that's how decades spanning conversations get ended without a second thought and that's why forums are dying because those are the people running it.
  
  That's the only thing that I've ever been able to think of, that mods don't like it so they end it - that they have some sort of "engagement" metric for new threads so why have an old one that is active when we could start a new one. At the very least a mod could say "Start a new thread, I'll update this one with a link to the new one for people who stumble on this later.
Downvotes from dipshit lemmoids are like badges of honor op. That’s how you know you’re right.
- I try to put no weights on the value of upvotes (and the opinions of others generally)
  The internet is too much of a nasty place to give it that kind of power
  but thanks
Moderator "necrodisease" is the belief that if a post is older than a couple page of the forum's front page, then posting to it is "necroposting" because if it's old it's resolved and therefore should be closed.
And then you have to stupid places where they auto close everything after a while.
And that's why your google forum threads end up going nowhere
- ...and if you make a new post about the same issue, they say "this has been asked before. Search the forum. Locking this thread" :D

16 comments