Is it better to necropost or to create a new thread for something that has an innactive thread from five years ago?

[Rockin da Worm]

Both are an annoyance to the general userbase but I'm curious which is considered worse.

 

[Epic Fail Man]

Necroposting is the most based thing you could do on this site.

 

[We Are The Witches]

Maybe it depends on the topic.

I have necroposted threads to try to add info on the individual that had the thread dedicated to, which I see as the correct thing to do, but if you're for example going to make a new one about a more "general" topic (like, there's a bunch of copypasta threads), maybe you should create it, if at least has a new quirk to it.

It helps to have everything organized. I don't think there's a need for the same exact topic scattered across the forum, and it may also be a pain to navigate when the "Is this already been discussed?" list pops up, so in that case the less the better.

 

[Catler]

I won't reply to a necro'd thread if I notice, but it depends.

If it's adding context to an individual's thread, or an event's thread? Sure whatever, but why would anyone ever bump a general, or qna post?

 

[SNU]

Do both. That way you please everyone and no one will be mad. Necro the thread then create a new thread and just link your post from the necro'd thread

 

[Poppavalyim Andropoff]

Bump

 

[Empress.]

Necro'd

 

[TroonsDid911]

Regardless of the choice it is always best to tag Null and ask what he thinks about it.

 

[Town Drunk]

I'd say necro, because it raises attention to the thread that already exists. I'm not gonna respond to a two year old comment, but I'll read it.