LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   LQ Suggestions & Feedback (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/lq-suggestions-and-feedback-7/)
-   -   Locking old threads. (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/lq-suggestions-and-feedback-7/locking-old-threads-4175422745/)

syg00 08-18-2012 06:27 AM

Locking old threads.
 
jeremy, fuckit, lock old threads.

No more fuggin arguments, just do it.

druuna 08-18-2012 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syg00 (Post 4757488)
jeremy, fuckit, lock old threads.

No more fuggin arguments, just do it.

I fully agree with this one!!

sycamorex 08-18-2012 06:50 AM

How old is old?

m.a.l.'s pa 08-18-2012 06:53 AM

And what if the thread is old but the discussion is ongoing?

sycamorex 08-18-2012 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m.a.l.'s pa (Post 4757515)
And what if the thread is old but the discussion is ongoing?

I don't think syg00 meant those kind of threads. Generally I agree that old and inactive threads should be locked but how old is old? 1 year? 3 years? 5 years?

I don't mean from the original post but from the LAST post. That way old but active threads would not be locked by accident.

druuna 08-18-2012 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sycamorex (Post 4757511)
How old is old?

That's for Jeremy to decide, but I would suggest 12 months or older.
Quote:

Originally Posted by m.a.l.'s pa
And what if the thread is old but the discussion is ongoing?

We are talking about dead and buried threads that are resurrected (like this one: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...-pages-477050/ OP hasn't been on-line for a year now....)

syg00 08-18-2012 07:09 AM

No doubt jeremy (and others) will say this is old turf, covered ad nauseum.

Personally, I'm sick of having to check the post count and initial post date just because some-one decides to resurrect some zombie thread.
Lock it, and make them start a new *relevant* thread - leave that alive to develop.

Randicus Draco Albus 08-18-2012 07:35 AM

Personally, I think the suggestion raises more questions than answers.

How would it be done? Have the moderators constantly searching for threads that have been inactive for the specified time? I am sure they would enjoy the extra workload.

Is the resurrection of old threads common enough to warrant a blanket policy of locking?

And of course, what is an appropriate time frame? One year, two years?

syg00 08-18-2012 08:01 AM

Sorry, if you haven't searched the archives, you aren't qualified to dissent.

Nothing to do with the mods - make a date, and script it.
KISS.

sycamorex 08-18-2012 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randicus Draco Albus (Post 4757546)
Personally, I think the suggestion raises more questions than answers.

How would it be done? Have the moderators constantly searching for threads that have been inactive for the specified time? I am sure they would enjoy the extra workload.

Is the resurrection of old threads common enough to warrant a blanket policy of locking?

And of course, what is an appropriate time frame? One year, two years?


That would be highly inconvenient. What about automatically closing threads that have been inactive for x years. If such an option is not available by default, I'm sure there's a plugin offering such a functionality.

Personally reviving old and inactive threads does not drive me mad but it's a waste of time in most cases. These are typical scenarios:

1. Some (usually new) member answers some post that is x years old. The answer is usually no longer relevant to the problem due to the gap in time.
2. Some (usually new) member hijacks an old thread asking for help with a similar problem. Again, first of all, hijacking is not recommended. Secondly, the circumstances are inevitably different from the original poster, which is another reason to start a new thread.

3. The only semi-valid reason I can think of would a VERY late update from the original poster.

Faced with 1. and 2. members usually reply that they should not revive old threads and that a new thread should be started. After that the mods move the posts to a separate thread.

While it is not MUCH work, it is unnecessary work.

Having said that, as this phenomenon is not that widespread, I don't think that Jeremy will decide to implement it.

H_TeXMeX_H 08-18-2012 08:13 AM

I think they should be locked, but it isn't too much of a concern. Maybe 5 years would be a good limit. There is no use in threads that old, and it is usually necro posts by hit-and-run posters.

Randicus Draco Albus 08-18-2012 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syg00 (Post 4757557)
Nothing to do with the mods - make a date, and script it.
KISS.

Sounds good to me, but I used to frequent a Linux site where locking threads, including old ones, was a favourite hobby. This topic came up while I was there and I suggested automatically locking inactive threads after a specified period of time. The answer from the staff was that it was not possible. If they were wrong, then it is something to consider here.

Quote:

Sorry, if you haven't searched the archives, you aren't qualified to dissent.
One; I am not dissenting. Merely providing input. There is always at least two sides to every issue and making an informed decision requires knowing all relevant factors and arguments. Providing input is neither dissenting nor attacking.

Two; With a pompous retort like that, it is not surprising that you feel any input that is at variance with your statements or arguments is dissent. If the only people who are "qualified" to offer opinions are moderators and a few trusted senior members with thousands of posts, the Suggestions and Feedback section should be removed so the unworthy masses that make up the overwhelming majority of the membership do not pollute the sanctum with our stupid ideas.

syg00 08-18-2012 08:41 AM

One: considered input is always useful.

Two: considered input is always useful.
Lack of of evidence of such is otherwise.

unSpawn 08-18-2012 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syg00 (Post 4757488)
jeremy, fuckit, lock old threads.

No more fuggin arguments, just do it.

Linuxquestions.org has been around for some time now. All of that time usage has been free of cost for any member and visitor. Some members contribute, advertising pays some but most of it comes out of Jeremy's pockets. Sure you may feel particularly irritated about some topic but do you really think addressing Jeremy and demanding this issue to be solved in this way reflects the appropriate amount of respect?

Wrt the topic I'd like to point you to your own 2011 thread on the same topic: Locking old threads which refers to actions Jeremy did take back in the Locking really old threads automatically? thread. Do you really think there's been an upsurge in necroposting since your old thread? Or could it be, given your last explanation in that thread, this problem vexes you more than others? How would you explain other members, seasoned or new, not responding to necroposts?

jeremy 08-18-2012 12:00 PM

A couple comments:

* As I've explained multiple times now, requesting that new members search before they post while then automatically and indiscriminately locking all old posts does not make sense. Additionally, automatically and indiscriminately locking all old posts is not something that is in-line with the spirit of the LQ community.

* As I have also previously stated, we are open to suggestions on how we can stop *accidental* posting to old threads. Posting in a relevant manner to old threads should in no way be stopped or discouraged by this.

* syg00, You've been a member long enough to know that language is not acceptable here at LQ - please edit it out of your post.

--jeremy


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:27 AM.