Locking Old Threads

['Bota Fan]

Making absolute rules always ends in making absolute exceptions. As for locking old threads, make the decision on a case-by-case basis. If enough of us take the time to hit the red "panic button", problems will come to the moderators' attention. Choices can then be made.

Case in point. A thread (that I'm not going to link to) about a dealer. Mike locked it. Good call. I'm not sure that thread wasn't the target of this thread, anyway.

 

[SnowRidge]

[quote='Bota Fan]Making absolute rules always ends in making absolute exceptions. As for locking old threads, make the decision on a case-by-case basis. If enough of us take the time to hit the red "panic button", problems will come to the moderators' attention. Choices can then be made.

Case in point. A thread (that I'm not going to link to) about a dealer. Mike locked it. Good call. I'm not sure that thread wasn't the target of this thread, anyway.[/quote]
I am proposing automatic locking of old threads. Manual locking would be much too labor intensive.

If you look at the date I started this thread and the date the dealer thread was revived, you will see this one preceeded that particlular necroposting and was not triggered by it. However, if it had been locked automatically, as I propose, it would have never happened.

Again, locking a thread does not in any way prevent anyone from searching on or reading any thread. It just prevents necroposting. Locking old threads is done on some of the other forums on the web. As forums age and the old threads get, well, older, I predict it will become common practice to lock old threads.

 

['Bota Fan]

If you look at the date I started this thread and the date the dealer thread was revived, you will see this one preceeded that particlular necroposting and was not triggered by it.

Shot my mouth off again without having all the information. Sorry for being impulsive.

Lots of opinions on this subject. It will be interesting to see where this leads.

 

[Bird]

[quote='Bota Fan]Making absolute rules always ends in making absolute exceptions. As for locking old threads, make the decision on a case-by-case basis. If enough of us take the time to hit the red "panic button", problems will come to the moderators' attention. Choices can then be made.

Case in point. A thread (that I'm not going to link to) about a dealer. Mike locked it. Good call. I'm not sure that thread wasn't the target of this thread, anyway.[/quote]

While I can see both pros and cons, this post seems to be a good idea to me.

 

[Mike058]

Maybe the date started could be added to the title-- Thread/ Thread Starter/ Date Started ? A lot of times I've wished I knew how old a thread was before I opened it so I could have a feel for the timeline, for lack of a better expression.

 

[shvl73]

I'm against locking old threads. Some of them are a good read when they are resurrected. There are some that bring up and relight old fires but, they get locked if people notify a mod instead of fanning the flames. Overall, I don't see it as a problem.

 

[3RRL]

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.

I just had to respond to this thread.

What if you started a new thread like this: I wanted to respond in this thread (http.blahlblahblah) but it was locked. So now I'm asking here. Guys would have to go there to find out what was discussed and come back to the new thread to respond. After clicking on that locked thread they say, Oh yea I remember that thread. If it was the same thread they would know right away. I think that's more of a waste of time?

Lots of responses to threads are additional questions to the original question too, not just another answer. But regardless, any new input adding to the thread might help someone who has not seen the other responses before. In those there is a wealth of information. A new thread, especially if there is no link to an old thread, might not have those alternatives in it. So a poster/member doesn't receive the benefit of input in the old thread. Then there are threads that develop into a wider range of related questions/answers but still remain on topic. There is that possibility a response will add another avenue. Maybe not for the original poster, but surely for others.

I'm against locking old threads "automatically" as suggested. I think it would be a disservice to the members. I don't think a time limit of inactivity is a good reason to lock an old thread, or any thread. TBN has rules in place that determine when a thread needs to be locked. Those make sense. The automatic time limit does not.
What's the big deal posting on an old thread? Just my opinion, of course.

 

[riptides]

No locks.

It didn't take but a few moments for someone to realize the thread was time tripping.

It brought some marketing attention to someone.

It showed how peoples opinions can change over time.

So the thread actually became positive.

The real issue is, be aware of what, where and when you post information or opinions.

-Mike Z.

 

[tommu56]

what about in the bar with the "perma link" a thread start date

"Thread / Thread Starter " secton date started along with person that started it?


tom

 

[LBrown59]

.

The only Problem I see with old threads is the people who see old threads as a problem.