Locking threads that are 12 months old?

22 replies
I sometimes think I'm probably the only person here who looks at the dates when threads are started.

Recently I've seen threads resurrected that are anything from 12 - 24 months old - usually re-opened by a spammer looking for keyword threads to add a spam link to. Then others pile in and reply - sometimes even after I've pointed out that it is an old thread.

Is it possible for threads to be automatically closed to new replies after they have been dormant for, say, 12 months?

What do others think?
#locking #months #threads
  • Profile picture of the author Dan C. Rinnert
    Sometimes, I feel that way.

    But, sometimes, there is new, relevant information to add. I've sometimes dug up an old thread of mine to update it with new information or as a follow-up. In my opinion, it can sometimes be helpful to keep things all in one thread rather than to start a new thread.

    Usually, though, it's the forum spammers that dig up old threads and post one-liners, then other people overlook the date and think it's a new thread, and it gets moving again.

    So, it's a toss-up for me. There are benefits to leaving them open, and there are benefits to locking them. But, for the most part, old thread resurrection doesn't seem to me to be a major problem. An occasional annoyance, yes, but maybe an annoyance worth putting up with for the benefits of leaving threads unlocked.

    Of course, on another day, when spammers are running around hot and heavy, I may have a differing point of view.
    Signature

    Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

    Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3052080].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tpw
    Whine!

    Once a thread is resurrected, report the link spammer. When his post gets whacked, the thread drops back into the bowels of the site.

    On the other hand, not all resurrected threads need to be reburied. Some of that stuff is timeless, and deserved to be resurrected.
    Signature
    Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
    Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3052165].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
    I'm pretty sure it's against the rules of the forum to resurrect an old thread, no matter how ground breaking the info or how much additional value it provides to that thread.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3052180].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

      I'm pretty sure it's against the rules of the forum to resurrect an old thread, no matter how ground breaking the info or how much additional value it provides to that thread.

      I don't think it is against the rules, just frowned upon.

      If it were against the rules, they would lock old threads.

      And I have it on pretty good source that as long as value continues to be added to the thread, there is not much of a problem with it.

      After all, we invite people to use the Search button, and the search results will return old threads, and people won't necessarily realize that searched result is years old.
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3052195].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
        I did a Google search a few weeks ago, found an old thread (didn't look at the date, unfortunately), responded, and received a warning saying that my account would be permanently disabled if that occurred again.

        I quickly learned to look at dates now

        Can you imagine loosing an account after investing several months/several years here? I was so paranoid, I stopped posting for awhile... (can you blame me?)

        Originally Posted by tpw View Post

        I don't think it is against the rules, just frowned upon.

        If it were against the rules, they would lock old threads.

        And I have it on pretty good source that as long as value continues to be added to the thread, there is not much of a problem with it.

        After all, we invite people to use the Search button, and the search results will return old threads, and people won't necessarily realize that searched result is years old.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3052510].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author tpw
          Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

          I did a Google search a few weeks ago, found an old thread (didn't look at the date, unfortunately), responded, and received a warning saying that my account would be permanently disabled if that occurred again.

          I quickly learned to look at dates now

          Can you imagine loosing an account after investing several months/several years here? I was so paranoid, I stopped posting for awhile... (can you blame me?)

          Mr. Myers should pop in here then, because one of his other mods is contradicting him.
          Signature
          Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
          Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3052554].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
          I did a Google search a few weeks ago, found an old thread (didn't look at the date, unfortunately), responded, and received a warning saying that my account would be permanently disabled if that occurred again.
          PM me and let me know who said that.

          If the person wasn't a moderator, which is what I expect is the case, they're confused. If it was, there's more to it than just replying to an old thread.


          Paul
          Signature
          .
          Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3053600].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dan C. Rinnert
      Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

      I'm pretty sure it's against the rules of the forum to resurrect an old thread, no matter how ground breaking the info or how much additional value it provides to that thread.
      Do you have a link to that rule?
      Signature

      Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

      Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3052220].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tpw
        Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert View Post

        Do you have a link to that rule?

        No he doesn't. LOL

        But Santa Claus is in town.
        Signature
        Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
        Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3052226].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Dan C. Rinnert
          Originally Posted by tpw View Post

          But Santa Claus is in town.
          Where's he hang out while in town? Mrs. Claus won't let him go to the malls anymore.
          Signature

          Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

          Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3052261].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author tpw
            Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert View Post

            Where's he hang out while in town? Mrs. Claus won't let him go to the malls anymore.

            Last I heard was that he was told where to find the swingers' club...

            As he strode away, one could hear the bells on his boots ringing as he danced with joy, and we could hear his voice fading into the distance, "Ho, ho, ho!! It will be a Merry Christmas!!"
            Signature
            Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
            Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3052288].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Josh Anderson
      If you are "pretty sure" there is some forum rule... then it sounds like you have not read the forum rules :p

      So here they are for everyone to read:

      http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ing-forum.html

      Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

      I'm pretty sure it's against the rules of the forum to resurrect an old thread, no matter how ground breaking the info or how much additional value it provides to that thread.
      No, it is not against the rules.

      The question posed in this thread is resolved by the simple fact that members are moderators.

      If a thread is resurrected and the post is useful then new useful discussion will ensue.

      If a thread is resurrected and the post is not useful then the thread will not get additional replies.

      If a thread is resurrected by someone who is doing nothing but spamming then it will be obvious. Members can use the report post function and it will disappear.

      Every warrior should read this sticky in its entirety as well:

      http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...moderator.html

      Also consider that Allen has started "All in one" threads in this forum that are meant to be evergreen.

      Some threads are just that good.

      If people would read the forum rules and understand their role as a member moderator then threads like this one are unnecessary.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3053676].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author King Shiloh
    Banned
    Like Dan said, it's one of those things we have to tolerate. It shows that there's no human system that cannot have loopholes which negative minded people will always take undue advantage of.

    If threads are locked because of spammers, then what happens to the innocent OP and other folks that have something genuine to add or contribute because of changes in business models, systems, strategies, etc. We can't afford to be starting new threads on one subject matter over and over again.

    Forum marketing has this as one of its ills. So, let's admit our imperfection.

    However, you can ignore or betterstil, report the spammers whenever you notice one. I do it and will always do it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3052189].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author FredJones
      No, locking threads that are 12 months old may not be a great idea. There would be some long-running interesting discussions that would get affected. Personally, I think it is a good idea to go back to your thread or a thread that you had interest upon earlier and update it if you have any further information/advancement with respect to what the thread was addressing. In a way, that's what makes forums like Warrior Forum become a long-standing asset fit to survive the longer race. Hence I would prefer to keep older threads alive and let them live/die sheerly upon merit and applicability.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3052216].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    It's official: "What Josh said."


    Paul
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3053882].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      It's official: "What Josh said."


      Paul

      Yep, when admin signs the Thank You card, then that is better than "written in stone".
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3053901].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Hlatky
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      It's official: "What Josh said."


      Paul
      He also got a rare "thanks" from admin.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3054020].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
    I can honestly say that I have no idea why some people react so bitterly and negatively when old threads are resurrected.

    Of course, sometimes (quite often) it's done by spammers, and then other people come along with answers to the OPs question, only to subsequently discover that it's age-old, and probably long since resolved. I've been caught out a few times myself, and in such cases it's slightly annoying.

    Having said that, what with the frequency of which some questions are repeated day-in, day-out (in new threads) anyway, I don't see how it's any more of an issue, really. Maybe it's even a good thing, sometimes, if it means someone has the opportunity to have their issues addressed without resorting to starting yet another identical thread, and effectively draining everyone's time unnecessarily.

    Most of the feedback and advice people give around here isn't exactly that time-sensitive as to go out of date within 2 weeks, 2 months, or - in many cases - even 2 years, anyway, is it?

    And as for spammers: they will and do spam in new(er) threads, too.

    Try to pay more attention to post-dates, if you don't want to run the risk of contributing to a defunct thread. If everyone does the same, they'll be re-buried more quickly.

    Whichever way you look at it, anyway, you're still faced with an incalculable volume of repeat questions, inaccurate and misinformed "factual" advice, crazy superstition and illogical, backwards opinion - even in new threads.

    Welcome to "life"; non-exclusive to the WarriorForum.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3053906].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

      Maybe it's even a good thing, sometimes, if it means someone has the opportunity to have their issues addressed without resorting to starting yet another identical thread, and effectively draining everyone's time unnecessarily.

      The Warrior Forum is only a "time drain", if you let it be a time drain...
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3053913].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
        Originally Posted by tpw View Post

        The Warrior Forum is only a "time drain", if you let it be a time drain...
        But if you apply yourself properly, you can make it into a dime train.

        Sorry, that spooneristic play on the phrase was just too delicious for me to let slide.

        It's really our own fault that necroposting happens. The reason new forum members find and resurrect old threads is because there are not enough exciting new threads to satisfy them.

        So when they run out of new threads to read, they just keep right on going... and they don't really see the dates, because "unread" is "unread" no matter how old it is.

        It's also worth asking how many of them found that old thread when they used the search function like we keep wishing they would do.
        Signature
        "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3054014].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Black Hat Cat
    Banned
    Originally Posted by rosetrees View Post

    I sometimes think I'm probably the only person here who looks at the dates when threads are started.

    Recently I've seen threads resurrected that are anything from 12 - 24 months old - usually re-opened by a spammer looking for keyword threads to add a spam link to. Then others pile in and reply - sometimes even after I've pointed out that it is an old thread.

    Is it possible for threads to be automatically closed to new replies after they have been dormant for, say, 12 months?

    What do others think?
    Wouldn't it be easier for you to just not participate in those threads? Why does it matter how old the thread is? If it doesn't interest people, they won't participate in it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3053945].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    Michael,
    I can honestly say that I have no idea why some people react so bitterly and negatively when old threads are resurrected
    I do. I know exactly why, and there's more than one reason. You covered some of them pretty well for someone with no idea.

    Most of them are spammers, looking to "hide" a response in the archives. Some of them clearly don't realize that bumps it to the front and attracts attention.

    Some people are bent on order above all, based on rules that are much stricter than will work in the real world. These "rules" often have no grounding other than personal preference.

    Sometimes the new post is a sneaky attempt to bump an old thread for promotional purposes, some of which are not obvious.

    Sometimes people read through a recently bumped thread, which can be multiple pages in length, only to find out it's a waste of time as it's no longer relevant or accurate.

    Some people think that anything that was written more than 6 hours ago is outdated.

    Some people are repeating what they've heard from other misinformed members. A well-intentioned effort, but one that can have unpleasant side-effects.

    Givcen that many of the threads that get bumped are the more controversial topics, some folks get annoyed at having to see the same old arguments, over and over. They don't realize that the discussions aren't "same old" to new folks, and that new folks will always tend to develop the same groups of opinions and questions.

    Some people just want something to gripe about.

    Etc. Ad nauseum.


    Paul
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3053980].message }}

Trending Topics