There's a lot of interesting threads here, except most of them had their last reply over 3 months ago. But why is the rule at 3 months? Why can't it be something like 6 months? I don't know if this topic belongs here, so if it doesn't, can a mod move it? Thanks.

Three months is a good standard because three months without a reply indicates a lack of interest. It is by no means an absolute standard, however; if you think a thread merits revival, and you have something to contribute, by all means revive it. It might also be appropriate to make a new thead on the same topic. Use your best discretion.

Oh. OK. So if there's something that I want to contribute to a dead discussion, I can? Like, let's say someone asked a question that has been answered. That counts right?

Well, generally you don't want to revive dead question topics, because there's no real point. The question has been answered, and thus the topic serves no further purpose. If you wanted to continue discussing it in a non-question context, you could make a new topic in a different forum if you were so inclined.

Sorry I meant hasn't been answered. But I get what you're saying so far.

A question that hasn't been answered has probably been resolved elsewhere by the time three months have elapsed.

And if you wish to know if the problem was solved, wouldn't a PM to the person who had the problem be a bit more direct?