[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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
--jeremy |
Quote:
--jeremy |
Quote:
--jeremy |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Hi,
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
--jeremy |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:06 AM. |