[RESURRECTED] Thread prefix?

When some muppet comes along several years after a thread is dead and bumps it, people tend not to notice the time disparity and can end up wasting time re-reading/responding to posts that have long since lost their meaning.

How about a new prefix that is automatically applied to a topic title ( just like [SOLVED] ) when a thread is brought back from the dead so that people aren't caught by surprise.

Yeah, it's a problem. The worst I've seen was 8 years old. Maybe a prominent banner somewhere saying "Please check the thread's age before replying" is the solution.

... or an automatic closure of a thread that hasn't been updated for a year.

Originally Posted by sycamorex ... or an automatic closure of a thread that hasn't been updated for a year.

Sometimes there's a valid reason to update an old thread, my suggestion was more about increasing visibility of the fact that the thread is an old one.

Originally Posted by GazL Sometimes there's a valid reason to update an old thread

Theoretically yes, but practically I can't see any valid reason for an update of, say, a two year old thread (apart from the general non-technical section). In 99% of cases it'd be more reasonable to start a new thread. It saves time for everyone:
a) members/mods will not waste time on looking at such a thread again.
b) members/mods will not waste time on writing things like: Please don't resurect a x-year old thread / Please don't hijack a thread. Start a new one, etc.
c) in the very unlikely case that there's a valid reason to make a post in such a thread. One can always start a new thread and link it to the old one.

IMO, the number of b) is MUCH higher than the number of c)

On the other hand, I like the prefix idea as well.

Once while searching Google, a TWO year old thread came up but didn't have the "command" required for the desired solution, so I searched further and found that "command"! The first thing I did then was to reply to that two year old thread stating the reasons and the command in question, the next day some member of that thread acknowledged my post, rated helpful and said a thankyou,

Crux: Closure is not always the solution.

Originally Posted by brianL Yeah, it's a problem. The worst I've seen was 8 years old. Maybe a prominent banner somewhere saying "Please check the thread's age before replying" is the solution.

There's actually a message *and* the Quick Reply is disabled.

--jeremy

Originally Posted by GazL How about a new prefix that is automatically applied to a topic title ( just like [SOLVED] ) when a thread is brought back from the dead so that people aren't caught by surprise.

Out of curiosity, how big of an issue do long time members feel this is?

--jeremy

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul Once while searching Google, a TWO year old thread came up but didn't have the "command" required for the desired solution, so I searched further and found that "command"! The first thing I did then was to reply to that two year old thread stating the reasons and the command in question, the next day some member of that thread acknowledged my post, rated helpful and said a thankyou, Crux: Closure is not always the solution.

This is one of the many reasons I'm against auto-closure. Continually telling new members they should search before the post and then closing all older threads just doesn't seem right IMHO.

--jeremy

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul Once while searching Google, a TWO year old thread came up but didn't have the "command" required for the desired solution, so I searched further and found that "command"! The first thing I did then was to reply to that two year old thread stating the reasons and the command in question, the next day some member of that thread acknowledged my post, rated helpful and said a thankyou, Crux: Closure is not always the solution.

I agree! Many times I found old threads from this forum while searching, and many of them are "not solved". I agree the solution won't be more needed by the OP but people searching will be benefit.

Originally Posted by jeremy Out of curiosity, how big of an issue do long time members feel this is? --jeremy

I don't think it's worth worrying about

Hi,

Originally Posted by jeremy Out of curiosity, how big of an issue do long time members feel this is?

I find it annoying.... But there are some very legitimate reasons to resurrect an old thread, which makes auto-closure a none issue in my opinion.

A few measures to address this are already in place, but I would be in favour of a tag. Maybe not automatically after a thread is X months/years old, but when someone does resurrect an old thread this tag is added.

Maybe an extra warning to the poster with the option to still abort after s/he pushes the Submit button.

As always, just my 2c.

It's not a huge problem, just an occasional annoyance. If there's a quick win to be had here then IMO it'd be worth the effort. If it's going to take significant engineering then it's an issue we can live with.

Originally Posted by jeremy Out of curiosity, how big of an issue do long time members feel this is? --jeremy

The kind of updating that Anisha is talking about is probably a good thing since Google never forgets. However, I see a fair number of ancient threads being pulled up by someone with a question. If the members have moved on, nobody may ever really see the question and all the goodies built into LQ to help people asking questions don't come into play.

Maybe there is a way to add an extra step to old threads and ask the user if they are going to update the info or ask a question. If they're asking a question, maybe bump them to a new thread.

Originally Posted by Hangdog42 Maybe there is a way to add an extra step to old threads and ask the user if they are going to update the info or ask a question. If they're asking a question, maybe bump them to a new thread.

Once again, we already do this. For older threads the Quick Reply is completely disabled. If someone does click the reply button there is a large red "Please note that this thread has not been replied to in over 6 months. Please ensure your reply is still relevant and timely." note at the top.

--jeremy