Why are so many old threads being resurrected?

I suspect that people ( like me ! ) with poor eyesight and dyslexia fail to read the last date ?

Also new members go through threads looking for something that interests them not realising the thread is old.

A lot of them seem to restart with a post which contains an advert for a product, so I think commercial enterprises scan the back threads and add their advert to a post in an attempt to make it look relevant. I reported one the other day for that reason.

A good percentage are scammers trying to push their dodgy websites.

I’m not saying that this is happening here, but thread-bumping sometimes happens when a poster wants a thread to drop off the page - pushing old ones up will do that.

Is it the same person doing the bumping?

Spam bots, mostly.

I agree with Blossoming, but I think that it might be out of boredom too. It’s very quiet on here.
Which isn’t helped by the Active List not working properly.

If the new post looks like a genuine reply, maybe the person has googled a topic and the thread has come up & they didn't notice its date.

I take it ‘quiet’ is another way of saying ‘it’s a bit boring’ Fanny?

The most interesting thread recently was about ‘she who mustn’t be talked about’ though…..

Who is that calendargirl? Or is it she who must not be named? I must have missed that thread.

She sometimes features on the Royal pages AGA

I did say that it may be out of boredom, I sometimes read old threads. There are some good ones out there!
She who cannot be named; US former actress and (former?) member of the British RF.

Wasn’t that thread revived via a ‘Why was my thread deleted?’ thread? Or has that been deleted too?

Maybe start a new thread if you think old ones are being resurrected too much ?

nanna8

Maybe start a new thread if you think old ones are being resurrected too much ?

She did!
Though I really do wish that more people would start threads

I’m surprised (a bit) that nobody has started a thread about Her Majesty not making an appearance today. I suppose we’re all scared of saying the wrong thing / being accused of saying the wrong thing

FannyCornforth

I’m surprised (a bit) that nobody has started a thread about Her Majesty not making an appearance today. I suppose we’re all scared of saying the wrong thing / being accused of saying the wrong thing

And didn't Prince Charles look very sombre as he laid his absent mother's wreath?

I didn’t know the Queen wasn’t going to be there until David Dimbleby announced it. I had only switched on a few minutes before 11. I’m sure she would have gone if at all possible.

Sounding a bit frivolous, I’m always pleased when the wreath layers have stepped back from the task, especially the Royals who have to go up steps. Have visions of them missing their footing and toppling over backwards!

It was announced that the Queen would not attend at about nine o'clock, I think. She has sprained her back, apparently.
Rather worrying.

I revived the thread 'harry and megan' (sic) because a thread concerning them had been removed with no explanation. The original poster then stated a thread asking why, and sensibly both threads have been allowed to remain and a lively discussion ensued.

I'm speculating of course, but I think the Queen would have attended the ceremony, if at all possible. It made me pause for thought.

Highjacking by me, sorry.

FannyCornforth

I’m surprised (a bit) that nobody has started a thread about Her Majesty not making an appearance today. I suppose we’re all scared of saying the wrong thing / being accused of saying the wrong thing

There is some wild speculation on MN - feels just a little distasteful to me

Given her age I think a strained back (although painful I’m sure) is a less serious problem than many others which could have necessitated the Queen having to rest.

Very disappointing for her to have missed today’s ceremony but I expect ‘an abundance of caution’ as the phrase goes has been used.

Made me pause for thought too Namsnanny