[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.

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.

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.

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

--jeremy

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

--jeremy

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

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.

I don't think it's worth worrying about :)

Hi,
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.

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.

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

What I got from Hang dog's post is that there should be a question- with radio buttons.
"hey there, you're responding to an old thread. Are you adding a response [] or Asking a new question that deals with it [] ? "

If they choose "new q" then they get shunted to a new thread creator. Then again this is fairly complicated.

The problem with Zombie threads is that when they float up to the top of the forum other people don't carefully look at the date of creation, and respond as if it's a new thread. I'm sure I've responded to a zombie saying "this issue was resolved a while ago, please search" - and subsequently realised it's an old thread! I assume that most people browse the forums by looking at the titles, and rarely at any other info provided (assumption only!) so I would be pro having a [OLD THREAD] tag.
"if last post-1 is < 1 year older than today, flag as [OLD THREAD]."

TG

I don't see a major problem, I don't see it happening that much. When it does, the mods can split the new posts into their own thread.

Right on. Closure would be over-reacting.


I agree that it would be nice to be warned, & the tag idea sounds good to me.


I don't see how anyone could miss the banner that comes up when you try to post to an old thread, but some must be ignoring it; so maybe something like this would be a good idea:
That, or force us to click on the banner before the "Reply to Thread" dialog box is even shown.


BTW, I suspect this the 8 year old thread brianL was referring to:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ore-rank-4690/

This is actually more along the lines of what I was thinking. To be honest, I've never responded to a thread old enough to trigger the warning, so I've never seen it in action. In terms of impact on LQ, digging up old threads is a pretty minor deal in my opinion, but it probably does have more of an impact on new users than people who have been here a bit.

I only reply to tell the "resurrectionist" to look at the date on the original post.

If anyone is still interested, this is the thread I was talking of: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...-linux-290492/

Every once in a while Google leads me to a thread like this that doesn't have a response, so I'll hammer-out one (for the benefit of others that may be googled to it).

Other than a [Ressurected] tag/header, could we just stick with the standard warnings and place a "Zombie Envelope" on it?
Maybe just a Skull or tombstone?

The red coloured message "Please note that this thread has not
been replied to in over 6 months. Please ensure your reply is still
relevant and timely." is shown ONLY when the first time a Muppet
;p responds to it, and once the Muppet responds there is no such
warning for the other people who are about to jump in seeing the
bumped up thread.

So, if this warning gets shown every time when one intends to
respond to 6 year old thread, then perhaps..?

++1

I do this, too; If I find a thread on *any* forum that describes the problem I'm having, and I find the solution, I post that fix everywhere I can find it.

Nothing is worse than getting two hits in Google with the exact same error you're getting, and no one's found the solution. :P

What annoys me the most is when a thread is resurrected, there have been a couple of recent contributions and I don't notice that it was originally started years ago. (Yeah, what is really annoying me is the 'I should have noticed' aspect.)

So, for this particular problem, I have a couple of suggestions:

• On another forum, I have seen that the practice is to include the thread start date/time on the 'latest posts' page. potentially, that date could also get additional emphasis (red/bold) if it were in excess of some period ago, if people still don't notice.
• Alternatively, anyone responding to a post started in excess of some time period ago could get the red warning, not just the first to post after the relevant time period.

Neither of these would stop the resurrector from resurrecting, but I am quite sure that this would result in the resurrector getting an early reminder about the desirability of starting a new thread, in most cases. And, more important, there would be more chance that people who don't intend to participate in resurrection noticing.

I think this issue is what causes the most annoyance and ire about resurrected posts.

TG