Automatically Lock Old Threads?

[DC73]

Maybe it's just me but I find it irritating to be reading what I think is a fairly new thread, only to get to the end and finally realize it's over 5 years old and the only reason it was resurrected was so someone could toss his two cents into a problem that was presumably solved long ago.

If possible, I suggest automatically locking old threads that haven't had any activity in say, 6 months or even a year. You could allow the OP to request the thread be re-opened when there is an update.

The rest of us could simply start a new thread and link to the old thread if necessary.

But, I may be nit picking. This is a great forum and I'm glad I found it.

DC

 

[Exceller8]

I think the real problem is there are simply too many new threads. It would be much better to keep similar topics going instead of 50 new threads on the same topic. The "show us your Toolbox" thread is a good example.

 

[The Cobbler]

that would be a moderating nightmare. far easier for you to look at the thread dates before you start to read if it bothers you.

 

[soj]

To the OP: I respect your opinion, and realize it is shared by many (I see lots of old threads revised, then a few posts later someone complains that the thread is old). I may be the odd man out, but I have learned lots from older threads. I have never understood what it matters if the thread is old, as long as the information is relevant to today. And it most likely will be, or someone would not have posted an update. I usually find what I want to read about through the "New Posts" link in the black bar at the top of the page. If it is not a familiar title, and has multiple pages, I usually use the "View All" link so I can start from the beginning. Some threads you can tell by the title that older info would be useless today. Most of those are in the Garage Sale area, like "Harbor Freight Coupon Thread". Since coupons expire, only the latest posts have any value.

Maybe what we need is a new column "Date of first post". That way those that feel as the OP does could just ignore the older stuff.

I agree with Exceller8, the fewer threads there are on a given topic, the easier it is to find good info.

Thanks to the OP for bringing this up, I will be interested to see how others feel about this.

-jp

 

[HOTFR8]

I have just revived a couple of my old topics as I am updating what I posted. I understand and know what you are getting at so perhaps a way of only letting the Original Poster revive an old topic would be good.

 

[alwaysFlOoReD]

No! Don't lock. I like seeing these threads rise from the dead. There's learning to be had and I like the randomness. I too use the 'New Posts' button.

 

[Toymeister]

No! Don't lock. I like seeing these threads rise from the dead. There's learning to be had and I like the randomness. I too use the 'New Posts' button.

+1.

The best part of old threads is getting advice from poster who long moved on. They often give a perspective that no longer exists with current posters.

 

[C96]

Locking just because you weren’t paying attention and think its old is ridicules. Plenty of threads resurrected with good information.

 

[ADSR]

+1.

The best part of old threads is getting advice from poster who long moved on. They often give a perspective that no longer exists with current posters.

+2

But as someone who's run a VB, i can understand it. Nothing is worse than an old user going back into that thread and removing advice and or pics which makes the thread useless.

 

[NUTTSGT]

I've found myself reading old threads and not realizing jow old they are until the last page.

That being said, I'm not going to go through several hundred pages of threads, locking each one for the purpose of preventing, "back from the dead thread."

Sometimes old threads die off quickly but other times they do stick around and become relavent again.

EDIT; What I just find somewhat hypocritical is the OP asking old threads (6 months to 1 year old) to be locked yet he just posted in a thread that was started about 7-8 months ago.

 

[Addrock]

I think that the search function in this forum is at least partial to blame. Every time I use it I wonder why I tried to kick the football again.

 

[mitusa]

Some of the old threads have a lot of useful info in them....

So,,,,No Lock!

IBTL!

 

[SeniorCitizen]

I would suggest to at least BOLD the date or put some COLOR on it.

 

[DC73]

EDIT; What I just find somewhat hypocritical is the OP asking old threads (6 months to 1 year old) to be locked yet he just posted in a thread that was started about 7-8 months ago.

And yet that post was relevant to the discussion at hand which is kind of the point. I realize not everyone shares my opinion. It's just that - an opinion. I find resurrection of old threads valuable when the OP is updating the information or someone else brings some new relevant information to the table but far too often it's just being resurrected for no good reason.

And this doesn't have to be a manual process. It could easily be done automatically. I can live with it either way, just thought it would help users sort through the madness.



DC

 

[kd3pc]

old threads, like old folks - have a lot to offer those who are inclined to use them

please leave the old threads in place.

 

[DC73]

old threads, like old folks - have a lot to offer those who are inclined to use them

please leave the old threads in place.

I'm not suggesting they disappear. Just be locked so no one but the OP or a moderator can unlock them for new posts. They would still be available to read and to search.

DC

 

[ducksface]

And why shouldn't everyone be able to add to it?
Maybe I came upon the answer to what that Herbrand tool really was and what year it was really made.


Open thread.
look at the very first piece of information afforded you.
upper left...every time.
pass or proceed.
repeat.

 

[CNGsaves]

Only thing GJ should look for when old threads are opened, is whether a SPAMMER is the poster.

I've reported countless Spammers that post non-sense reply, but embedded in their text is hidden virus link. You accidentally click on text and you're infected.

SOLUTION:
Thread > 1 yr old . . . AND . . . poster < 20 posts, then alert an Admin and look at that post for likely spammer.

 

[Zeke]

What's wrong with reading the archives when they are bumped? All of this business about locking and bolding dates is for lazy people. I always look at the dates and the info in the avatar. But, I don't use a phone to browse the forum so I readily see all of this.

Is that the problem? You guys are all on phones?

I think that the search function in this forum is at least partial to blame. Every time I use it I wonder why I tried to kick the football again.

Use Google to come in the back door.

 

[ducksface]

Nope.
Works the same on an old Droid I use 90% of my perusals here. I see everything as I would on a desktop.

 

[AndrewV]

This thread will be referenced to in 3yrs.

 

[PelicanPines]

+1.

The best part of old threads is getting advice from poster who long moved on. They often give a perspective that no longer exists with current posters.

+1

 

[larry_g]

I understand your frustration or even more the egg-on-your-face feeling if you post a rebuttal to a 4 year old issue. It happens and I've been there but I believe that the old threads should be open as there is far more opportunity for good and updating.

lg
no neat sig line

 

[Rock knocker]

Bad and whiney idea by the OP.

 

[soj]

Bad and whiney idea by the OP.

Come on Rock, tell us what you really think!

If this had been a poll, old threads would have won.

 

[T-Mac]

My vote-don't lock

 

[C96]

Use Google to come in the back door.

Thanks for the tip Zeke!

I’ll have to try this with my wife tonight!

 

[SeniorCitizen]

The date of the original thread doesn't even appear until it's clicked on.

 

[HOTFR8]

Only thing GJ should look for when old threads are opened, is whether a SPAMMER is the poster.

I've reported countless Spammers that post non-sense reply, but embedded in their text is hidden virus link. You accidentally click on text and you're infected.

SOLUTION:
Thread > 1 yr old . . . AND . . . poster < 20 posts, then alert an Admin and look at that post for likely spammer.

Easily fixed if reported. Once the spammer is dealt with the old topic falls back to the date of the last post made. Noticed that a bit lately but it is usually the popular topics the spammers hit.

 

[mo2872]

This thread will be referenced to in 3yrs.

Thread winner, right there.

 

[404]

Old threads are great. The wisdom of the forgotten ancients revealed like a pottery fragment from Pompei .

 

[Rock knocker]

SOLUTION:
Thread > 1 yr old . . . AND . . . poster < 20 posts, then alert an Admin and look at that post for likely spammer.

Before you narc out a poster with a few posts and bother the mods, you should look at the post to see whether it is likely spam or a newby who got there by a search engine. Spammer are easy to recognize, as are newbys.

 

[NUTTSGT]

Before you narc out a poster with a few posts and bother the mods, you should look at the post to see whether it is likely spam or a newby who got there by a search engine. Spammer are easy to recognize, as are newbys.

Spammers are generally easy to spot. They make unusual posts that don't quite make sense or use poor English.

They also copy/paste part of a previous post from another member. If you read a post and think that you just read it, you might have. It very well may have been part of another members post above.

Sometimes you might spot image from a broken link. If you quote them, you'll see a link at the end of their post.

Other times, they'll have an odd screen name. It'll be a few letters followed by numbers or just a mix of letters that spell nothing.

 

[Rock knocker]

Spammers are generally easy to spot. They make unusual posts that don't quite make sense

Now you're talking about me

 

[larry_g]

I look at the posters other posts by clicking on his user name and then see other posts. Spammers will have hidden links and or show multiple posts of the same thing in response to different threads. Even if the poster has only one post, looking at 'see other posts' will reveal the hidden links. If so then use the report button and put spammer in the text box.

lg
no neat sig line

 

[CNGsaves]

If a post looks hokey, I click Quote and almost 100% of time there is hidden infection at end of their non-sense or repeated wording post. That's the clincher it's a spammer.

Then I back out of the quoted post and report the Vermin to be zapped.

 

[rlitman]

What's wrong with reading the archives when they are bumped? All of this business about locking and bolding dates is for lazy people. I always look at the dates and the info in the avatar. But, I don't use a phone to browse the forum so I readily see all of this.

Is that the problem? You guys are all on phones?

Use Google to come in the back door.

The phone does make things harder to see.

I agree with the OP's sentiments in theory, but in practice, there are just too many valid reasons for someone to tag onto a necro thread, that it just doesn't make sense to lock it.

Understand that I'll frequently google a subject, and be referred right back here to an ages old thread. This site is chock full of information that is invaluable to far more than just the thread's OP, and even the people who participated in the thread while it was active. It may not be organized like a wikipedia, but it contains a dearth of knowledge that might otherwise be lost. So even though the OP's issue may be long resolved, when future generations come to visit, why should they be restricted to the myopic viewpoint of the times that the thread was originally active? If a better answer comes along years later, why should it not be allowed to be appended?

To make a necessary automotive hypothetical situation:
Let's say the OP asks about a problem with his vehicle, only to receive a bunch of potentially valid answers. Then two years later, the manufacturer releases a TSB fix for this known issue. Now I come along and buy a used model of that vehicle, google the problem when I have the same issue, come to the old thread. Should I be forced to get to the end of the thread with no reference to the TSB?

 

[404]

Now you're talking about me

Perfect! Thank you.

 

[404]

The phone does make things harder to see.

I agree with the OP's sentiments in theory, but in practice, there are just too many valid reasons for someone to tag onto a necro thread, that it just doesn't make sense to lock it.

Understand that I'll frequently google a subject, and be referred right back here to an ages old thread. This site is chock full of information that is invaluable to far more than just the thread's OP, and even the people who participated in the thread while it was active. It may not be organized like a wikipedia, but it contains a dearth of knowledge that might otherwise be lost. So even though the OP's issue may be long resolved, when future generations come to visit, why should they be restricted to the myopic viewpoint of the times that the thread was originally active? If a better answer comes along years later, why should it not be allowed to be appended?

To make a necessary automotive hypothetical situation:
Let's say the OP asks about a problem with his vehicle, only to receive a bunch of potentially valid answers. Then two years later, the manufacturer releases a TSB fix for this known issue. Now I come along and buy a used model of that vehicle, google the problem when I have the same issue, come to the old thread. Should I be forced to get to the end of the thread with no reference to the TSB?

Very good explanation and post. Thank you.

 

[rsieracki]

i personally believe that when one selects "start new thread" a pop up "did you search first" should be displayed along with a search box

as far as bumping old threads... i sometimes find it odd but i see no harm in it