Some time ago, perhaps still, new answers to old questions were put under review (in a review queue), as if to imply: 'This question has been addressed, at length; what could possibly be the value-add at this point.' Or so it seemed.
But the site evolves over time, as language does, and the chatty little answers or one-horse theories become quaint, like old Toy Town. Let's go play with the wooden toys! And metal? And bears with buttons, what? Well, they're not choking hazards…but they're not cute on a shelf either. I suppose they're meant to be time capsules, a history of language.
In any case, I no longer search active questions (only under week or month) because so much of the "activity" seems to be noncritical edits, which does not bother me (I would edit articles until the end of time…). But the question is…
Are they editing the old questions to make them actually active or merely more attractive? Or both, possibly.
I don't know what the intent is, but I avoid the "active" questions because so many are so old. Like, 'Eureka! Here's a nugget… Oh, this was abandoned 12 years ago; I'm here all alone. Never mind.'
But it seems like some recent questions found under active are not so easily found, if at all, under week or month. IDK how it's sorted; perhaps there is a link to info on that. TY.