How do you feel about members necroposting?

 

Necroposting is when a member replies to an old topic. These topics typically haven't had a post in over a long period, like a year or more.

 

Do you allow something like this? If you don't allow it, how do you justify not allowing it? What does it hurt?

I generally don’t mind as long as it’s on topic.

 

However it kills me when a forum has a rule on necroposting, but then leaves a board full of 10+ year old topics open, and just beats people over the head when they inevitably necropost. Just lock the old topics already!

I have no problem with that at all.

I generally don’t mind as long as it’s on topic.

 

However it kills me when a forum has a rule on necroposting, but then leaves a board full of 10+ year old topics open, and just beats people over the head when they inevitably necropost. Just lock the old topics already!

That is one of my biggest pet peeves on big forums. I'll usually quit visiting when I see BS like that.

It's a bit of a grey area should I say... it's okay for certain threads, like for a news story and someone provides an update to it. But to post on an ancient thread with nothing better to add or post in a "Merry Christmas" thread in March, then certainly not.

That is one of my biggest pet peeves on big forums. I'll usually quit visiting when I see BS like that.

Worse, it seems to be a feature of sites that tell their users to 'use the search first' - so they do, which is how come they find what they think is their problem in a 10+ year old thread, then necro it.

 

If y'all don't want necro posts, lock old threads. Heck, in SMF's case I even wrote the very mod for it.

I don't mind it if it's relevant to the topic. Having a rule about it is honestly dumb. As long as it adds value to the topic, it should be encouraged. Doesn't matter if it's 1, 10 or 20 years old. A discussion can always be revived at some point.

As long as it adds to the conversation, I don't mind it at all. Sonic Retro, a Sonic the Hedgehog forum I joined 16 years ago, used to crack down on people who necropost, but they no longer enforce this rule.

Sonic Retro, a Sonic the Hedgehog forum I joined 16 years ago, used to crack down on people who necropost, but they no longer enforce this rule.

Do you know why? Hopefully, backlash caused an activity drop, and they realized it was a bad idea. That's what needs to happen on forums that do stuff like that, IMO.

If there is one reason to read the rules, it is this one as you just won't know whether it is or isn't allowed on a board. I honestly don't care as long as it is done sensibly which I just figure everyone has enough sense to know when to necropost and when not to do so.

 

One justification people have for the rule is because old threads contain posts from people who may not currently be active but it really doesn't matter who is or isn't active because what was written can still be discussed with who is currently visiting and still provide a fruitful discussion. You may not perfectly get what they meant but without the person in question around, you wouldn't know either way so it don't matter.

Do you know why? Hopefully, backlash caused an activity drop, and they realized it was a bad idea. That's what needs to happen on forums that do stuff like that, IMO.

Honestly I think it's because of activity. The forum is still quite active, but it's no where near as active as it was when they enforced these rules.

I've never had a problem with necroposting if the one posting has something of value to add to the discussion. There may be a few exceptions, like posting on a "current event" topic that is no longer current or posting in a thread when the exact same discussion is on the first few pages. Overall, I'd rather a user necrobump than post a new topic on the same subject.

I personally have absolutely no issues with anybody posting in any thread if I've left it open. If, as an admin/mod, you don't want certain threads to be posted in, then you should remove members' ability to post in those threads.

 

In general, as long as the post adds something of value and is relevant to the thread, I wouldn't care if it was made 10 years after the last post in the thread. That being said, a gentle reminder to somebody if they're posting in a thread that's outdated or has a new thread dedicated to the same topic is fine too, but you should also probably consider locking those kinds of threads to avoid posts there in the first place. :)

I don’t have an issue with necroposting. Old content has value. I’d rather a user respond to an older topic than repost the same the topic.

 

I also don’t have a rule for necroposting as I find it to be an odd rule. Especially since a lot of times when someone posts on an older topic, it’s more than likely they found it through a search engine or from a link.

I also don’t have a rule for necroposting as I find it to be an odd rule.

I honestly feel it is an overbearing rule that really doesn't make the poster feel welcome when he is told not to do that.

I honestly don't see why necroposting would be a bad thing. The user is still adding value to the forum and in my eyes keeping the forum current and active. It doesn't matter what thread they reply to as long as it is on topic and adds value.

 

I myself am someone who does a lot of necroposting, I like to bring the old threads back to life and sometimes people forget that the old posts even exists so I like to go to old threads that haven't been active in a while and post so I can give them another chance to flourish. I've never gotten any negative feedback for doing this and to be honest I've had forum owners encourage me to do so.

 

Sometimes it's sad to see a good quality thread go dead so it's nice when a member brings it back to life and gives it another chance to be active and popular again. In my mind if a forum were to ban necroposting it could make the forum look dead and abandoned.

 

Until I get asked to stop, I will continue being a necroposter and help the forum threads re-circulate.

And sometimes a visitor maybe turned member would show up from a relevent Google link to their search and may wish to respond to just that. Capture a guest, don't turn him away.

Good discussion is good discussion. I personally don’t mind it if the new posts adds to and encourages further discussion especially if the old threads are visible on the first or second page.

I honestly feel it is an overbearing rule that really doesn't make the poster feel welcome when he is told not to do that.

Same here. A guest can always turn into an active long term member if an admin plays their cards right.

 

When there’s strict rules in place, it’ll be tough to keep those members coming back.

I honestly feel it is an overbearing rule that really doesn't make the poster feel welcome when he is told not to do that.

I definitely agree with this. I think these rules were in place when forums were much more active and I guess some communities didn't like the fact that an old thread was being revived again. I like that better than having the same thread posted multiple times in a section.

I don't mind necroposts. If somebody has something to add to a conversation, then so be it! But that's the the about a forum about ancient anime, I think the necro part is encouraged!

On 5/5/2025 at 4:02 PM, Ravenfreak said:

I definitely agree with this. I think these rules were in place when forums were much more active and I guess some communities didn't like the fact that an old thread was being revived again. I like that better than having the same thread posted multiple times in a section.

This is why it's also a good idea to merge a newer topic into an older topic, especially if they're quite similar in nature. Duplicate content when it falls under similar content and the same "basis" of discussion is easier for content discovery along with ranking on the search engines. Especially, since they'll be confused as to what thread to rank.

"Duplicate content refers to identical or substantially similar content appearing on multiple URLs, which can negatively impact a website's SEO. While Google doesn't penalize for duplicate content within a site, it can hinder search engine optimization efforts by making it difficult for search engines to determine which version to rank"

Backlinko

Duplicate Content and SEO: The Complete Guide

What is duplicate content? And why is it bad for SEO? Get all the info right here.

So even if your content is technically different than what’s out there, you can still run into duplicate content problems.

This isn’t an issue for most sites. Most sites have a few dozen pages. And they write unique stuff for every page.

But there are cases where “similar” duplicate content can crop up.

For example, let’s say you run a website that teaches people how to speak French.

And you serve the greater Boston area.

Well, you might have one services page optimized around the keyword: “Learn French Boston”.

And another page that’s trying to rank for “Learn French Cambridge”.

Sometimes the content will technically be different. For example, one page has a location listed for the Boston location. And the other page has the Cambridge address.

But for the most part, the content is super similar.

That’s technically duplicate content.

Is it a pain to write 100% unique content for every page on your site? Yup. But if you’re serious about ranking every page on your site, it’s a must.

Which is where forums align as well, similar content that's based on the same topic, should be merged together. It's a lot better to have a mega topic that discusses the same topic than having multiple pages that discusses the same subject at hand. It's also better for user intent. The best thing to do in this situation is to use header tags(h1-h4), so the search engines know exactly how to rank the topics. Header tags will also help a forum rank in the ai overviews sections as well.

So if a topic is about "What's your favorite game", this should be a h1 tag, then the h2 should be "Discuss your Favorite game".