Locking Old Threads

[SnowRidge]

I would like to suggest that old threads be locked after a period of inactivity. I don't know if the forum software supports that or not, but if it does, I think it would be a good feature to utilize.

Today, someone resurected a seven year old thread. Instead of starting a new thread with a link to the old, he just added on to it. Too often, users don't realize how old a post may be, then go ahead and respond to it needlessly, wasting their and other users' time. Locking old threads would minimize this.

Ideally, threads would lock automatically once a certain number of days have passed with no new posts. I would also suggest, if it is feasible, that thread originators be able to lock a thread once a decent, but shorter interval has passed with no new posts.

Thanks for considering this -- and for hosting TBN.

 

[jeffinsgf]

I know this isn't a democracy, but I for one object to SnowRidge's suggestion. I found the thread extremely interesting, even if it was 7 years old. What about being 7 years old makes the discussion invalid? What the heck different would it have been if a new thread had been started with a link? You would have to take an extra step to see what the poster was talking about, which was avoided by simply adding to the existing discussion. I much prefer that (one thread even if old) to the ten thousand threads we have asking the same questions over and over.

By the Way------ Bird, you been hanging around here a loooonggg time!

 

[SnowRidge]

I know this isn't a democracy, but I for one object to SnowRidge's suggestion. I found the thread extremely interesting, even if it was 7 years old. What about being 7 years old makes the discussion invalid? What the heck different would it have been if a new thread had been started with a link? You would have to take an extra step to see what the poster was talking about, which was avoided by simply adding to the existing discussion. I much prefer that (one thread even if old) to the ten thousand threads we have asking the same questions over and over.

What is wrong with it? Well, a lot of threads are started by someone asking a question. When a dead thread is revived, people often unknowingly respond to questions that have long been moot. Sometimes these folks take considerable time to frame their answers, only to find out later that they have been wasting their time. Locking old threads will help prevent that.

 

[Bird]

By the Way------ Bird, you been hanging around here a loooonggg time!

That's a fact. But what 7 year old thread are we talking about? I haven't read everything today. As for locking old threads . . . I don't know. Of course, I don't know what would be involved in having the software do it automatically since that would have to be up to Muhammad and/or Ibrahim. But I can see both reasons for doing it, and reasons for not doing it. Something might change my mind, but my initial thoughts are to leave it alone.

 

[SnowRidge]

This one, Bird.

 

[jeffinsgf]

I sure don't find the issue moot. In fact, I deal with it a couple times a year and gleaned some interesting options from the thread. I still fail to see the advantage of starting a new thread with a link to the old compared to just adding to the old discussion.

Anytime I start reading a thread that is more than one page long, I check the post date of the opening post to see how long the conversation has been going on.

 

[MikePA]

In fact, I deal with it a couple times a year and gleaned some interesting options from the thread.

In case someone is confused, locking a thread doesn't prevent someone from reading it and gleaning information from it, it just stops people from adding new posts.

Before I'd even think about posting in an ancient thread, I'd asked myself, "Is what I am about to post really worth reviving a thread that's over 7 years old?" My answer to the thread Snowridge mentioned would be a decided NO. What does yet another example add to the thread, when most of the people who made the thread 'alive' years ago may not be active posters? At a minimum they are not involved in the thread anymore. Posting in an old thread never made much sense to me.

 

[SnowRidge]

I sure don't find the issue moot. In fact, I deal with it a couple times a year and gleaned some interesting options from the thread. I still fail to see the advantage of starting a new thread with a link to the old compared to just adding to the old discussion.

Anytime I start reading a thread that is more than one page long, I check the post date of the opening post to see how long the conversation has been going on.

The link lets people know right away that it is an old thread, and helps to prevent them from inadvertently paging through very old postings before they realize what is going on, or worse, responding to a moot question. People shouldn't have to be 'on guard' for ancient posts every time something pops up in "Recent Threads."

 

[Tig]

Interesting points. People here are good about discussing something that has been discussed before so we don't get any bashing about duplicate threads. At the same time most do seach the forums for information rather than start a duplicate thread.
I'm not taking sides but I could easily open an old thread thinking I was doing the right thing by not creating a duplicate.
On the other hand in other sites and forums I have participated in, there have been people who revive dead threads for a giggle. That gets old fast.

 

[WBWI]

I'm new to TBN but have been around forums long enough to know that the poster would get flammed for starting a new thread. How many times have you read (or posted) "Try using the search function, this was discussed x number of years ago" ?

Some old threads may have value, some may be a waste of time. It would be hard to make a blanket policy to cover all circumstances. :twocents: