Starting new threads or resurrecting old ones

What's the preference here?

It makes sense to resurrect if you're commenting on that situation, though I wonder the validity when people respond to an OP's question/concern when that OP hasn't been here in years!

If you're making an update to something is it better to add an update to the existing thread, or do most people only read the 1st post and the rest is lost?

Seems like it's hard to sift through a bunch of posts to get to an update unless there's some feature that flags it's an update here and I don't know about it. But maybe it's disjointed to start a new one that's tied to previous info.
Sometimes old threads with new comments come in very helpful. Might not have read them at the time, but then when I realize how old the thread actually is I feel quite silly responding to it... Hmmmm... good question...

I enjoy reading old threads and wondering whatever became of the person who started the thread or if the problem was solved. I see nothing wrong with resurrecting old threads, particularly if the topic is relevant or somebody has something to add to what was said in that particular thread. I don't like threads that bring up something, I get interested, then the OP never posts what happened or they never come back to the board. We all need closure to the stories.

Quote from caliotter3I enjoy reading old threads and wondering whatever became of the person who started the thread or if the problem was solved. I see nothing wrong with resurrecting old threads, particularly if the topic is relevant or somebody has something to add to what was said in that particular thread. I don't like threads that bring up something, I get interested, then the OP never posts what happened or they never come back to the board. We all need closure to the stories.

In particularly long threads, some do not read all of the posts. I respond to the original post on purpose and if I am responding to a later post by someone else in the thread, I will refer to the post I am responding to. I just think it is easier if people identify the post they are responding to, otherwise assume it is the original post.

I tend to prefer new threads because unless it is a total hot button for me personally once a thread gets several rows of replies I often skip it figuring what needs to be said has been said.

I've resurrected an old thread that happened to be 5 years old when I did a search. I didn't look at the date until after I posted in it. But the resurrected thread died quickly. The good thing about it was, I was able to Private Message an original poster (he was still active on Allnurses), and he gave me great advice! However, original posters of the thread never responded.When I see old threads, I don't post in them, I ignore the urge to post in them and I watch them die quickly as well.

[font="lucida sans unicode"]i would think that there should be a way to "retire" threads and keep them available for reference in an archive. it is uncomfortable to read a thread and then look at the date and see it is 6 or 7 years old.

i guess it depends upon the topic. a topic such as "which smart phone should i buy for school?" isn't timely after a few months. "what's your best nursing ghost story?" has been going for years. also "the funniest reason a patient came to er" and a few other good ones. in general, i'd suggest that the poster search existing threads for answers to common questions, then only start a new thread if the existing ones don't cover the particular problem. of course, i'm always up for new threads and interesting discussions on new iterations of a concern, opinion or topic. and if anyone has an idea for a humor thread, please start it. vent threads can be fun, too, and sometimes your vent just begs for a new thread.

A thread several years old that has run on for several pages and the issue has been "beaten to death" should not be revived like a zombie risen from the dead.Start a new thread is my preference if the topic is more than a few months old.