LQ Suggestions & FeedbackDo you have a suggestion for this site or an idea that will make the site better? This forum is for you.
PLEASE READ THIS FORUM - Information and status updates will also be posted here.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
I'm on your side. I can imagine a possibly more rigorous system to deal with this that might make locking not required, but clearly the existing warning page is not doing a good enough job. Maybe insert an email stage or something, "you asked to post to an ancient thread, if you really want to, click the link in this email..."
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Here is another one, hasn't been touched in 12 months until someone comes along and gives advice, that was wrong anyway, to the OP who later tells us he gave up on it ages ago. I don't know how may times I have commented about how long a thread has been "asleep" after someone has come along and resurrected it from its grave. They must be actively searching for the oldest threads they can find that they think they can answer even if the answer is wrong.
Distribution: Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Fedora, Ubuntu
While I am still against closing old posts (it just doesn't make sense to me that we tell new members to search before they post, and then close old threads), it does appear that at some point the warning message on old threads and the QRB being disabled ceased functionality correctly. I'm looking into it now.
Almost all of the necroposts I can remember seeing on this forum were by bots. If you think about it, this makes sense; a real person needs a certain amount of clue to be using the search function in the first place, and a person of that quality wouldn't post unless he had something relevant to say.
A bot, on the other hand, probably just searches for the body of the message the it intends to post, and then responds to the top hit (the one with the most "appropriate" collection of keywords).
I'm wondering if this can be used as the basis for a bot trap...