Why? Just because some topic was discussed on some site once doesn't mean all possible ideas were expressed on that topic. Unless the users of a site are static and unchanging there's going to be new members seeing that old topic for the first time. It's ok to talk about old things.
I like that HN allows reposts (within reason) and people typically link to previous discussions in the new discussion. You can see the old points made about a topic but then take a look at the new ones. A lot of forums have similar policies on thread necromancy. And it encourages discussion and even just revisiting interesting topics.
The social media All New All the Time content treadmill leads to shallow discussion.
> Why? Just because some topic was discussed on some site once doesn't mean all possible ideas were expressed on that topic.
Not 'all possible ideas' are worth being expressed. Of the subset that are, it gets boring discussing the same old stuff over and over. When people are bored of your forum, they quit.
> Unless the users of a site are static and unchanging there's going to be new members seeing that old topic for the first time.
Newbies should read the old threads. On a well-run forum (admittedly rare) there would be one thread per topic, and members shouldn't reply until they've read the whole thing (and this is only reasonable to demand on a well-run forum, otherwise threads are full of crap not worth reading.)
> I like that HN allows reposts (within reason) and people typically link to previous discussions in the new discussion. You can see the old points made about a topic but then take a look at the new ones. A lot of forums have similar policies on thread necromancy.
HN's reposts are necessary because of its old-thread-suppressing algorithm. Replying here doesn't bump threads to the top. The system works reasonably well. But it's optimised for news.
The "necroposting" taboo doesn't apply to well-run forums. When the quality level of discussion is high, historical context always relevant when something new pops up, even if it goes back years. There's nothing wrong with bumping that. It's only when forum operators allow threads to accumulate crap that it's better to frequently restart with a blank slate. (Social media, where the operators don't care in the slightest about what people post, being the ultimate example of this approach to running an online 'community'.)
