locking necros

[MrDudeMan]

I understand all of the technicalities regarding why Harvey locked this thread. However, it made me wonder why the thread couldn't remain open anyway.

The necro post was actually on topic and a valid contribution to the thread. Honestly, why does it really matter that it was a necro post? I'm not talking about any specific thread; this question is meant to address the concept only. I understand some necro threads can devolve rather quickly, but I see no immediate reason why the post in question was heading in the wrong direction.

 

[Perknose]

I understand all of the technicalities regarding why Harvey locked this thread. However, it made me wonder why the thread couldn't remain open anyway.

The necro post was actually on topic and a valid contribution to the thread. Honestly, why does it really matter that it was a necro post? I'm not talking about any specific thread; this question is meant to address the concept only. I understand some necro threads can devolve rather quickly, but I see no immediate reason why the post in question was heading in the wrong direction.

Harvey was merely following our long-established, formal policy, as you know.

However, I more than agree with you that necro threads should only be locked if the initial necro post is of clear troll intent or would likely lead to subsequent troll posts. Since neither of these scenarios seem to apply in this case, I will re-open this thread. There need be no arbitrary statute of limitations on honest, product discourse.

 

[soccerballtux]

how about someone write a script that auto appends or preface the title with the post date if it's older than 12months?

 

[MrDudeMan]

Harvey was merely following our long-established, formal policy, as you know.

However, I more than agree with you that necro threads should only be locked if the initial necro post is of clear troll intent or would likely lead to subsequent troll posts. Since neither of these scenarios seem to apply in this case, I will re-open this thread. There need be no arbitrary statute of limitations on honest, product discourse.

Thanks Perk. That makes perfect sense to me as well. No disrespect meant for Harvey.

 

[DigDog]

funny, i was thinking the opposite, to auto-lock every thread after a certain time.

 

[alkemyst]

how about someone write a script that auto appends or preface the title with the post date if it's older than 12months?

I would imagine they'd be on the ban train for a while.

 

[Charlie98]

funny, i was thinking the opposite, to auto-lock every thread after a certain time.

I was mod on a different forum (not computer/tech related) and we were supposed to lock threads after 3 weeks or something... totally dumb, because 3 weeks and 1 day later... someone was back, asking the same (or similar) question when it just could have been tacked onto the ongoing discussion.

I suppose a case could be made to auto-lock after a year or two, maybe...

 

[alkemyst]

I still don't get the big deal with necro'd threads. People get pissed off about the stupidest stuff.

 

[MrDudeMan]

I was mod on a different forum (not computer/tech related) and we were supposed to lock threads after 3 weeks or something... totally dumb, because 3 weeks and 1 day later... someone was back, asking the same (or similar) question when it just could have been tacked onto the ongoing discussion.

I suppose a case could be made to auto-lock after a year or two, maybe...

I disagree with an auto-lock at any predefined interval. I think it should be based purely on content. Case in point, the thread in my OP was a great example of continued discussion even though monon, a new member, made his contribution 9.5 years later. I see no issue with how Harvey handled it because that's the precedent and rule, but, as Perk suggested, there's no issue if the thread stays on topic.

I decided to ask the question using the example thread mainly because I wanted to post in it. I've had the thought other times, but I never had the right motivation to make this discussion thread.

 

[CZroe]

Trolling is one thing, but if a thread lives again because the conversation has re-ignited, the community is better off. If it doesn't, then it fades away again on it's own and the "problem" takes care of itself. Locking old threads for being old is a sure way to slow down this community, just like over-fragmenting the community (new Home & Garden forum? Seriously?!)

 

[Red Squirrel]

Never really got that policy either. Though often threads may be accidentally necroed. I've run across threads while doing a search and went to reply then realized it was from like 2010 or something. Most forums show a warning if a thread is more than a certain time old, that would be a good idea to implement here, or even better make them go into an archive mode if staff is dead set on not allowing it.

It would not be too hard to code something like that. I'm not familiar wit the vB database structure but I assume somewhere there is an int flag that is set to 1 when a thread is locked. So make it so archived is 2 and in the code that checks if a thread is locked it just checks if it's bigger than 0 and the code that shows the "locked" button shows an "archived" button if it is 2. A cron job could run nightly to archive threads older than a certain time, or the check could even happen when a thread is loaded so there's no need to interate through all threads all the time.

I know the mods/admins don't have access to the server, but someone has to be able to have some kind of access to do this and it would be a fairly simple fix that would save users and mods headaches.

 

[blankslate]

What are the guidelines for posting in older threads in a subforum that is fairly old (more than a couple of weeks and less than a month), but not very old is a suitable thread for the topic I wish to discuss.


Or to ask another way how long does a thread have to be inactive before it is considered by admins to be necro'ing a thread by posting in it?



......

 

[cabri]

It looks as if they are relazing the necro policy unless it is troll or spam that is resurrecting the thread.

 

[DrPizza]

It looks as if they are relazing the necro policy unless it is troll or spam that is resurrecting the thread.

Though, in many cases, it would still benefit the community of the person necroing a thread would simply make a new thread with whatever new information made it relevant again, and link to the preexisting thread. That way, people can start the discussion with the new information, rather than have to wade through year old information before they even realize that there's been some new "development" or answer or whatever prompted a bump.

 

[CZroe]

Though, in many cases, it would still benefit the community of the person necroing a thread would simply make a new thread with whatever new information made it relevant again, and link to the preexisting thread. That way, people can start the discussion with the new information, rather than have to wade through year old information before they even realize that there's been some new "development" or answer or whatever prompted a bump.

Right, but often new information is not thread worthy but is worthy of furthering the existing discussion.

 

[Ichinisan]

Though, in many cases, it would still benefit the community of the person necroing a thread would simply make a new thread with whatever new information made it relevant again, and link to the preexisting thread. That way, people can start the discussion with the new information, rather than have to wade through year old information before they even realize that there's been some new "development" or answer or whatever prompted a bump.

People subscribed to the old thread will not see the update. People coming across the old thread through Google (often, the same way the necro poster came across it) will not see the update.

 

[DigDog]

i think, 1 year out maybe? let's say that one year without activity is enough to make the thread either irrelevant, or enough to have come to its conclusion.

if someone asks the same question just point him to the locked thread, there's sure to be enough answers in there to find a solution to a problem.

 

[Ichinisan]

i think, 1 year out maybe? let's say that one year without activity is enough to make the thread either irrelevant, or enough to have come to its conclusion.

if someone asks the same question just point him to the locked thread, there's sure to be enough answers in there to find a solution to a problem.

No. I come across much older threads all the time while Google-ing. I often find the solution somewhere else or figure it out myself, and then I want to share that with anyone else who may stumble across that thread the same way I found it (searching for a solution to a problem).

I'm always severely disappointed when it's a forum that auto-locks old threads. They don't seem to realize that such a policy discourages contributing users.

 

[DigDog]

lets assume that it's not a time sensitive thread, for starters. It woudl make no sense if someone were to necro the steven colbert last episode thread one year from now.
so, a thread about some technical issue, let's say bad drivers or such.

generally, a thread as such will continue to get worked on until the answer is found. you'll come across many threads tagged [SOLVED] when googling. once the thread contains the information that it was created to obtain, there's no reason for the thread to be kept open - it's just something you look at to find your solution, you dont need to add anything to it.

thats my example; i think this is by far the most common way that threads behave. now, please, give me an example of a thread that remain viable after there hasn't been any activity in it for 1 year.
also, that would profit from material being added to it instead of just opening a new thread.

 

[CZroe]

lets assume that it's not a time sensitive thread, for starters. It woudl make no sense if someone were to necro the steven colbert last episode thread one year from now.
so, a thread about some technical issue, let's say bad drivers or such.

generally, a thread as such will continue to get worked on until the answer is found. you'll come across many threads tagged [SOLVED] when googling. once the thread contains the information that it was created to obtain, there's no reason for the thread to be kept open - it's just something you look at to find your solution, you dont need to add anything to it.

thats my example; i think this is by far the most common way that threads behave. now, please, give me an example of a thread that remain viable after there hasn't been any activity in it for 1 year.
also, that would profit from material being added to it instead of just opening a new thread.

"Nevermind. I fixed it/figured it out."

I see this frustratingly often for issues I have yet to solve and I need to discuss it with the OP.

 

[MrDudeMan]

now, please, give me an example of a thread that remain viable after there hasn't been any activity in it for 1 year.
also, that would profit from material being added to it instead of just opening a new thread.

Did you bother to look at the thread in my OP? It's a perfect example.

 

[DigDog]

Did you bother to look at the thread in my OP? It's a perfect example.

i'm sorry to burst your bubble but thats a perfect example of why threads should be locked.

the new guy replied to a seven year old thread with info for the OP who i hope to go has since found out the answer to his question. there is absolutely NO POINT in him writing that because there is no chance in hell that the OP, seven years later, is still waiting for someone to answer his college homework thread. it would have been irrelevant even a few weeks later. if this had been a forum of MIT professors and the new guy had just discovered the equation for the unified fields theory, then yay. but he might have as well have started a new thread.

i asked you for an example of a thread that is viable. that answering it actually makes sense, and that one it isn't.

as now. i don't *need* to ask you "are you still reading this thread?" because i know you are. but if in seven years i come back here and say "i can prove that you were wrong, seven years ago" you'd probably be one of those asking for the necro to be locked.

so there.

 

[MrDudeMan]

i'm sorry to burst your bubble but thats a perfect example of why threads should be locked.

the new guy replied to a seven year old thread with info for the OP who i hope to go has since found out the answer to his question. there is absolutely NO POINT in him writing that because there is no chance in hell that the OP, seven years later, is still waiting for someone to answer his college homework thread. it would have been irrelevant even a few weeks later. if this had been a forum of MIT professors and the new guy had just discovered the equation for the unified fields theory, then yay. but he might have as well have started a new thread.

i asked you for an example of a thread that is viable. that answering it actually makes sense, and that one it isn't.

as now. i don't *need* to ask you "are you still reading this thread?" because i know you are. but if in seven years i come back here and say "i can prove that you were wrong, seven years ago" you'd probably be one of those asking for the necro to be locked.

so there.

It's as if you think a forum thread can only help the person who originally posted it. You realize other people can continue a conversation, right? Two things:
1) You need to relax.
2) Your opinion is just that - an opinion.

I think that thread is still viable, which is why I started this thread. Perknose and several others agree.

As for the rest of your rambling, I have no idea what you're talking about, so I have no additional comments.

 

[CZroe]

i'm sorry to burst your bubble but thats a perfect example of why threads should be locked.

the new guy replied to a seven year old thread with info for the OP who i hope to go has since found out the answer to his question. there is absolutely NO POINT in him writing that because there is no chance in hell that the OP, seven years later, is still waiting for someone to answer his college homework thread. it would have been irrelevant even a few weeks later. if this had been a forum of MIT professors and the new guy had just discovered the equation for the unified fields theory, then yay. but he might have as well have started a new thread.

i asked you for an example of a thread that is viable. that answering it actually makes sense, and that one it isn't.

as now. i don't *need* to ask you "are you still reading this thread?" because i know you are. but if in seven years i come back here and say "i can prove that you were wrong, seven years ago" you'd probably be one of those asking for the necro to be locked.

so there.

The guy obviously found it through Google. Others looking for the answer through Google will obviously land there too. A sight that sells ads and gets paid for views might as well have the answer, and having the answer will boost the search rankings even further. Even if you assum that the OP is the only thing in the world that matters, you are assuming that it doesn't matter.

 

[Thebobo]

I understand all of the technicalities regarding why Harvey locked this thread. However, it made me wonder why the thread couldn't remain open anyway.

The necro post was actually on topic and a valid contribution to the thread. Honestly, why does it really matter that it was a necro post? I'm not talking about any specific thread; this question is meant to address the concept only. I understand some necro threads can devolve rather quickly, but I see no immediate reason why the post in question was heading in the wrong direction.

I agree, reasons already posted here.