Is there a consensus/policy on necromancy for threads with outdated answers?
I was looking for the ways to measure accurate time intervals, and came across this thread, which ranks highly on search engines:
It doesn't mention ContinuousClock which I believe is often preferred to the options mentioned in the thread.
I'm tempted to add a reply mentioning it so it shows up in search results as a newer, alternative option, but I'm hesitant since the thread in question is 4 years old.
When looking for a policy on necromancy, I found this post by Joe Groff where he speaks in favor of reviving old threads with new information. I personally agree with his position, but I'm curious if there's a community consensus/policy before I add my reply.
And it doesn't make any sense to post a new thread that's an FYI about ContinuousClock with the hope that it will eventually outrank the original for search.
This is more a matter of etiquette than policy, and I don't believe there's a strong consensus. There are some threads that are very old and imported from the mailing list days, which are usually somewhat disjointed and probably better served by starting a new thread. It's also my understanding (though this information may be outdated) that bumping these threads will email old mailing list participants without an easy way for those participants to opt out.
Personally my line probably looks something like: in a situation where you're specifically answering a question from an old thread, it's perfectly appropriate to append—your response is directly on point and would not be as useful as a new thread. Similarly, if you've stumbled across an old thread and you're wondering if there's been any more recent conversation, I don't think it makes sense to start a new thread just to ask that question.
OTOH, if you're trying to resuscitate a discussion from an old thread because you have a renewed interest in that topic, I think pragmatically it's usually easier for everyone to do that in a new thread. It will make the discussion more approachable if folks seeing it for the first time don't feel they have to dig through dozens (or hundreds) of prior posts. I think it also more naturally encourages the author to consider the prior discussion, pull out the salient points, and consider how the landscape has changed since the prior thread.
