Dragging Up Old, Old Threads

[+caderoux]

It seems like it would be good to have a way to auto-lock threads based on time of inactivity (a year, two years with no posts). If anyone really wants to revisit it, start a new thread with a link to the old one (http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=78829)

Edited March 30, 2006 by caderoux

[+Team Red Oak]

Here, here I second that opinion and suggest if there are no new posts in 12 months the thread should be locked.

Being able to read them is one thing, but to reply to one as though it was just posted is absurd.

[+sbell111]

I'd take it one step further and lock it after ninety days.

[+caderoux]

Wonder if the board has a feature for this...

[+Jamie Z]

I disagree. I've occasionally dug up old threads, either as a followup to the discussion, or to provide more info to future searchers...

 

I've always been a big fan of "Don't open a new thread if there is already an existing thread."

 

Not that I'm worried about a feature such as this being implemented. Don't count on it. Embrace the fact that The Archives are a living document.

 

Jamie

[+Tzoid]

Being able to read them is one thing, but to reply to one as though it was just posted is absurd.

 

Why?

[+BalkanSabranje]

It seems like it would be good to have a way to auto-lock threads based on time of inactivity (a year, two years with no posts).

 

What's your problem with old threads?

If you're not interested in them, why not just ignore them??

 

BS/2

[+sbell111]

I don't think anyone has a problem with old threads being available. The information they contain has value. However, many, many old threads are simply no longer relevent for many reasons. Technology may have passed them by (how bought those four-year-old battery threads), advances in knowledge may have proved them wrong, and the posters may no longer support their old arguments.

 

All three problems are resolved by starting a new thread and citing the old ones if they are relevent.

[+BalkanSabranje]

I don't think anyone has a problem with old threads being available. The information they contain has value. However, many, many old threads are simply no longer relevant for many reasons.

 

The possible relevance of a thread is depending on the reader and can not be determined by objective means.

[+caderoux]

The thread cited in my OP was an example of the problem. It happens on a fairly regular basis here. Someone posts to a long-dormant thread, other people reply and then realize there is no need to rehash the thread. And then the thread gets locked by a mod or the OP (if they're still around).

 

As far as ignoring them, the recent activity causes the thread to pop up to the top, and there isn't any indication that the thread had actually been dormant for years.

 

There is an indication that it started long, long ago (if you read the date), but not that it is dormant.

 

I'm a fan of don't open an existing thread if there is already an active discussion. Just like you wouldn't round up the guests from a dinner party 2 years ago to reargue a point. Assuming you have something new to say, and everyone stopped talking about a topic months ago, make your new point and link to the old dormant thread.

 

If a thread stays active, I don't have a problem with that.

 

Having said all this, someone could just make a Greasemonkey which turns your textbox red if you are replying to a post where the past reply was more than X months ago. That way, you can do it if you want to, but you'll get some indication that the thread has been dead for sometime. It won't be able to stop the piling on later, and it will only help the script users.

[+caderoux]

I don't think anyone has a problem with old threads being available. The information they contain has value. However, many, many old threads are simply no longer relevant for many reasons.

 

The possible relevance of a thread is depending on the reader and can not be determined by objective means.

But does it need to be posted to?

 

Should every thread about the slow website be closed and just have one master thread for gripes about the website and complaints which have long since been resolved?

 

Should every lame micro thread be dredged up and brought back to life?

 

Would this eliminate the need for markwells, since everything you could possibly want to know is further up the thread?

[+The Leprechauns]

Looks like you have a split of opinions. Give it a year and then bump the thread to see if viewpoints have changed.

[+caderoux]

I'm locking it 90 days after the last post ;-)

[+the hermit crabs]

I always enjoy it when fizzymagic's Geocaching Growth thread is "dredged up" and updated with new data. This is one example where having all of the old and new posts (with their graphs and charts) togther in a single thread is very helpful, rather than having to follow separate links to each one.

[+The Leprechauns]

I always enjoy it when fizzymagic's Geocaching Growth thread is "dredged up" and updated with new data. This is one example where having all of the old and new posts (with their graphs and charts) togther in a single thread is very helpful, rather than having to follow separate links to each one.

Excellent example! Another is the "Useless Hints" thread, which often lies dormant for long stretches until someone familiar with its history bumps it up after stumbling across a new useless hint.

[+sbell111]

That was a mighty fine example of a thread that I wouldn't want to see auto-locked.

[+budd-rdc]

Yeah, fizzymagic's Geocaching Growth thread was a good one to "drag" up.

 

I say we NOT lock the threads. You, too, can quietly mock people who think they are clever in trying to stir the pot needlessly.

[Jeremy]

I don't think there needs to be a Patriot Act because a thread or two is raised from the dead every so often and tricks people into believing that it is a new topic. They should just read the dates more closely.

 

If it got out of hand it would be more worthwhile to do this.