Suggestion: Minimum post count to post in old inactive threads
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.
Notices
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.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Suggestion: Minimum post count to post in old inactive threads
I have been thinking that there should be a minimum post count needed before you can resurrect an inactive thread that has not been posted to for longer than one year.
Recently I have seen a couple of ancient threads resurfacing when starting a new thread would probably have been more appropriate. It usually seems to be newer members resurrecting them. Possibly it could be something like 10 posts for a 1 year dormant thread, 50 for a 2 year dormant thread and 100 for a 3 year dormant thread.
I realise LQ encourages people to search for related existing threads, and post in them where appropriate. However in most cases of resurrected ancient threads that I have noticed, I feel it would have been equally or more appropriate to start a new one and perhaps refer to the old vaguely related threads.
Its not like this is a huge overwhelming problem, though. I's just been nagging me recently so I thought I would throw it into the ring and see what other people think.
Last edited by Eternal_Newbie; 04-27-2008 at 10:31 AM.
Reason: clarified a bit
I'd say quality over quantity any time, but what about having the option to make the thread read-only once the poster is satisfied with the response, or has lost interest?
That actually makes more sense, and I imagine would be easier to implement. You might also automaticaly lock threads read-only after a certain period of inactivity, eg 3 years.
I would say make any thread read-only if it has been inactive for---let's say 6 months. There could be several good reasons:
--OP lost interest
--problem was solved
--technology had evolved so some of the info no longer relevant.
Distribution: Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Fedora, Ubuntu
Posts: 13,597
Rep:
At times, posting in an old thread could be quite relevant. We do disable the Quick Reply after a certain amount of time, but I'm not sure going beyond that is really in the spirit of LQ. I'd be interested in further feedback, however.
Yes, it's not like LQ is being overwhelmed by Zombie Threads of Doom. And 6 months seems too short a period to lock a thread after. Perhaps I was just overreacting.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.