want end-of-thread indicator other than "solved"

I would like something other than SOLVED to mark the status of a thread that I've started.

Consider this situation. I post about a situation. There is discussion. I never resolve my situation and must abandon that line of effort in favor of some other (maybe as yet not discovered) approach.
The word that I use is ABANDONED.

Thanks for your efforts,
~~~ 0;-Dan

Just ask for your thread to be closed.

While not "Solved", the thread may contain information that's useful to others (and a member may come along and have useful information to add), so we tend to not arbitrarily close threads.

--jeremy

Originally Posted by jeremy While not "Solved", the thread may contain information that's useful to others (and a member may come along and have useful information to add), so we tend to not arbitrarily close threads. --jeremy

Agreed!!

That is why I mentioned the term, "Abandoned" for a question or situation that has no answer or resolution -- yet.

As I've thought about this, it might make operational sense for an "abandonded" thread to become "closed" if there is no activity in some period of time. My choice might be 180 days (6 months).

Regards,
~~~ 0;-Dan

The thing here is content. A necro thread should generally stay dead.

But in the interest of the community, if someone does find an old thread, they should still be able to answer the question presented. This is because search engines have latched onto that thread already, and its likely to come up in search results, so if a correct answer were to find its way into an old thread, it will still be valuable.

The problem being, most people that revive necro threads do so to up their post rate, or whatever nefarious theory you can think of, and add no important information to the thread/convo.

So IMO closing threads automatically serves no valuable purpose, but it should still be considered poor manners to revive necro threads unless you are going to add something of value to the thread.

Originally Posted by szboardstretcher The thing here is content. A necro thread should generally stay dead.

I'm not certain about what you mean by a 'necro' thread.
Consider some possible states for a thread?

• A thread may be OPEN or CLOSED. One can post into an open thread. One cannot post into a closed thread.
• A thread may be ACTIVE or INACTIVE. Someone posted to an active thread "recently." No one has posted to an inactive thread "recently." For me, "recently" is on the order of 90 days.
• A thread may be SOLVED or NOT-SOLVED. When solved there is a specific, definitive answer or resolution to the posted question or situation. Absent such an answer or resolution, the thread is not-solved.
• A thread may be IN-WORK or ABANDONED. When one continues to try to find an answer or resolution to the original posting, a thread is IN-WORK. Otherwise, the thread may be abandonded.

Originally Posted by szboardstretcher But in the interest of the community, if someone does find an old thread, they should still be able to answer the question presented. This is because search engines have latched onto that thread already, and its likely to come up in search results, so if a correct answer were to find its way into an old thread, it will still be valuable.

Many forum sites, do not allow posting to a CLOSED thread. Some allow posting but require some sort of dance -- especially if the thread is quite old and stale.

Originally Posted by szboardstretcher The problem being, most people that revive necro threads do so to up their post rate, or whatever nefarious theory you can think of, and add no important information to the thread/convo.

Perhaps comment-counts need a value modifier based on the age of the original posting.

A forum that wishes to enable continuation of threads which have gone idle might use the original poster as moderator. Forward the comments to the OP. If they accept or reject the remarks, fine. If they fail to reply, handle the remarks some other way.

Originally Posted by szboardstretcher So IMO closing threads automatically serves no valuable purpose, but it should still be considered poor manners to revive necro threads unless you are going to add something of value to the thread.

In my professional career, I've often heard the phrase, "overtaken by events." While it is possible that someone might resolve issues with Linux Mint-3 (Mint-16 is current as I write this.), it is probable that such answers or resolutions have been "overtaken by events" and are no longer relevant. These and similar cases could clearly be closed automatically when they become old enough and stale enough. We simply need an acceptable definition for "stale enough."

Regards,
~~~ 0;-Dan

In addition to what Jeremy wrote please remember moderators are here to help. There have been cases where I allowed a member to create a new thread or even pruned excess away to allow for the thread to continue. LQ is flexible enough in how we deal with things so should you ever encounter such a situation feel free to notify us and we'll check the available options.

Originally Posted by SaintDanBert A thread may be IN-WORK or ABANDONED. When one continues to try to find an answer or resolution to the original posting, a thread is IN-WORK. Otherwise, the thread may be abandonded.

So should threads that are on-going, either active or inactive but not solved, be labelled in-work? This line of logic can lead to all threads having labels.

Many forum sites, do not allow posting to a CLOSED thread.

Since I have never seen a board that allows additional posts in closed threads, I shall assume you mean solved. I have experience on a board that automatically closed threads marked as solved. It is a stupid policy. (One of the reasons I left.)

A forum that wishes to enable continuation of threads which have gone idle might use the original poster as moderator.

Oh Godness, no.

While it is possible that someone might resolve issues with Linux Mint-3 (Mint-16 is current as I write this.), it is probable that such answers or resolutions have been "overtaken by events" and are no longer relevant.

That is where common sense comes into play. Someone not smart enough to be suspicious of ten-year-old information in a field with rapid changes should not be using a computer.

These and similar cases could clearly be closed automatically when they become old enough and stale enough. We simply need an acceptable definition for "stale enough."

Good luck with that. Ask a dozen people for opinions of what is "stale enough" and you will probably get a dozen different answers.

In all honesty, what you are asking for is babysitting the board's members. Prevent necro posting by closing threads; label posts as not solved, abandoned or in progress, in case some people cannot discern whether or not a solution was found; etc. I for one say no thank you.

Originally Posted by Randicus Draco Albus In all honesty, what you are asking for is babysitting the board's members. Prevent necro posting by closing threads; label posts as not solved, abandoned or in progress, in case some people cannot discern whether or not a solution was found; etc. I for one say no thank you.

I agree! I think that Jeremy and LQ have achieved just that right balance between moderation, auto-features, and retention of a top quality of membership! I have wondered at times just how they have managed to keep that consistency, especially in the face of spam and various other things that try to upset it.

What's wrong with the way things are now? If you don't feel like your thread has been adequately solved, then don't mark it as such. I can't imagine a situation where I would be given an answer that solved my original problem, but where I didn't feel like it was good enough to mark as solved.

Did you read the OP? He would like the option of marking threads as not solved and either waiting or abandoned.

Originally Posted by Randicus Draco Albus Did you read the OP? He would like the option of marking threads as not solved and either waiting or abandoned.

But what's the point? If it isn't marked solved, it's either awaiting new answers or the OP doesn't care anymore. Why is a new tag necessary?

Originally Posted by Cultist But what's the point? If it isn't marked solved, it's either awaiting new answers or the OP doesn't care anymore. Why is a new tag necessary?

I agree.

Originally Posted by Cultist But what's the point? If it isn't marked solved, it's either awaiting new answers or the OP doesn't care anymore. Why is a new tag necessary?

I agree with you. Just explaining what the OP wants.

Well the first time you see a solved thread and you read it and you know the answers in it would not fix what the OP asked. But you see solved because the OP figured it out on his own . But never came back to say what they had done to resolve the problem. I really think threads should never be closed. or abandoned.

I even struggle with solved. That has been overly misleading in the forums do to search engines. The fact is today's solved could sometimes break things in the. future.