Old threads

[dougr1252]

What's the reason for keeping threads open forever? It's annoying when people tailend a year old thread, even when they mean well. Even more annoying is when _I_ start replying to something, and then realize it's a year old in the same month. Can old threads be automatically closed after a few months with no new posts? Exceptions by request to moderators?

Example: http://www.radioreference.com/forums/antenna-forum/72623-no-800-mhz-reception.html

 

[ME343]

They are kept in case someone has a question and they can search there question to find the answer instead of starting a whole new topic

 

[loumaag]

This suggestion was discussed many years ago and Lindsay's take on it was that unless the thread is spinning out of control to leave a resurrected thread alone. The reason they are left open (normally) is someone may have something pertinent to say on an old subject. I will admit that in the linked topic, that is not the case; however, it is the responsibility of each poster to only post in a topic that they are familiar with or have at least read from the beginning. The "culprit" here was DaleRay, who has only posted twice (both yesterday) although he has been a member for over 2 years.

 

[cpuerror]

It would be nice if this was reconsiderd. Seeing threads brought back from 2006 and even 2008 is rather annoying. Threads should be allowed to die with dignity.

 

[W6KRU]

I agree with the current policy regarding old threads but maybe the resurrecting of them could be cut down some if the "similar" threads section at the bottom of each thread was eliminated.

 

[N_Jay]

Maybe just a warning pops up when you post to a thread more than 6 months old, saying;
"This is an old. dead, and potentially obsolete thread. Please consider posting to a more current relevant thread. or creating a new thread as most appropriate."

 

[loumaag]

Maybe just a warning pops up when you post to a thread more than 6 months old, saying;
"This is an old. dead, and potentially obsolete thread. Please consider posting to a more current relevant thread. or creating a new thread as most appropriate."

Man, I like that idea! I think it would have to be vBulletin thing though...

 

[WayneH]

I think there's an option to move posts to a read-only "archive" without any serious code tweaking. Maybe we can go that route.

 

[MtnBiker2005]

I agree with post #2.

I don't agree old threads should be marked/moved/closed/etc to a archive area of the forum.

If that option affect the whole forum system.
Look at area like Mexico, Caribbean, Europe forum area. Then most post would be marked Archive then other poster would start a new thread for that same topic. Since it's not that busy in that part of the forum.

 

[ecps92]

There are Topics that return annually such as many of the Sporting Venues and as MtnBiker says many of the foreign Countries don't post much.

Why Start a new Thread, if it already exists.

I agree with post #2.

I don't agree old threads should be marked/moved/closed/etc to a archive area of the forum.

If that option affect the whole forum system.
Look at area like Mexico, Caribbean, Europe forum area. Then most post would be marked Archive then other poster would start a new thread for that same topic. Since it's not that busy in that part of the forum.

 

[hoser147]

Archived threads

Some great idea's here, I think we have all been duped by an old post at sometime or another.

 

[Jay911]

I don't agree with the idea of autolocking old threads. I participate in a lot of forums, and I've never seen one that needed such a system. Educating the board participants to only post in a thread if they have something relevant to say, and post a new thread if they have something new to discuss, is the better route.

Yes, if you leave threads open, you get things like what happened this morning, where a guy posted in the Uniden 3.01 firmware thread asking (essentially) how to program his new 396 with the data from his 246. But that's not because the thread is open, it's because people don't know enough to post a new thread (or search properly for an old one) for their own question/issue.

However, if you auto-close a thread, even one that may not have had a post for a year, you then prevent people from contributing if something new is learned. As an example, Alberta scanner users discovered several years ago that scanners could not trunktrack the City of Red Deer system because it has an oddball band plan. When the custom band plans were introduced in whatever firmware update Uniden pushed it out in (2.x or 3.x, I forget), the information that this problem had been fixed would have been impossible to post in the existing thread, because the thread would have been locked. And starting a new thread just to announce this would potentially miss the people who had subscribed to the existing thread, expecting a response there.

Again, I don't think the answer to the problem of people reviving old threads without new/beneficial information is properly rectified by locking all threads. I maintain that it's a training issue.

 

[WayneH]

Regardless of my previous post I'm not on the bandwagon with people being critical of bumping old threads. Sometimes you get a hijacker but I've always felt that why create a new thread when one already exists.

My exception to the rule is if the old thread is very long. In those cases I would suggest posting a link to the old thread in the new one. Also, bumping old FS posts to ask if the item is still available should not be permitted either. If we do have any type of auto-archive or locking it will occur in the Classified forums.

 

[blantonl]

I've going to chime in here as well. I think that the benefits of leaving threads open for contribution far outweigh the disadvantages of auto-locking threads.

Frankly, we'll cause more confusion when some threads are locked, and others aren't. I'm going to work with Wayne, our lead Forums Manager, to see if an auto-archival system should/could be implemented, but auto-locking threads is not a best practice.

If you see someone post to a thread that's been dead for years, remember that they might have stumbled across it while searching on google, or they may have come across it while searching on this site. Politely direct them to a more current thread if applicable. Otherwise, it's really ok! ;-)

Warm regards,

 

[N_Jay]

I've going to chime in here as well. I think that the benefits of leaving threads open for contribution far outweigh the disadvantages of auto-locking threads.

Frankly, we'll cause more confusion when some threads are locked, and others aren't. I'm going to work with Wayne, our lead Forums Manager, to see if an auto-archival system should/could be implemented, but auto-locking threads is not a best practice.

If you see someone post to a thread that's been dead for years, remember that they might have stumbled across it while searching on google, or they may have come across it while searching on this site. Politely direct them to a more current thread if applicable. Otherwise, it's really ok! ;-)

Warm regards,

That is why a auto notification is the best compromise. It requires probably the most coding, but it should be easy to check the current date and last post date and if the difference is greater than 180 days (or some other value) pop up a notice.

 

[blantonl]

N_Jay,

I agree... however, I've always been resistant to modifications to Vbulletin's stock code since upgrades require significant time and effort to incorporate.

I've tried my best to keep actual modifications to Vbulletin's out of the box code to the absolute minimum. Unless it is a revenue driving consideration, or major issue for the community, I usually defer.

However, I've seen two opportunities have have raised above the noise for modification:

1. This.
2. New Users who are moderated but don't get the message, which might require a Javascript pop-up alert so they "get the message"

Warm regards,

 

[N_Jay]

N_Jay,

I agree... however, I've always been resistant to modifications to Vbulletin's stock code since upgrades require significant time and effort to incorporate.

I've tried my best to keep actual modifications to Vbulletin's out of the box code to the absolute minimum. Unless it is a revenue driving consideration, or major issue for the community, I usually defer.

However, I've seen two opportunities have have raised above the noise for modification:

1. This.
2. New Users who are moderated but don't get the message, which might require a Javascript pop-up alert so they "get the message"

Warm regards,

I certainly understand. I did not realize you had not modified the Vbulletin code.

I run a Vbulletin site also, and I know the risk of modifying code only to have it blow up the next upgrade of patch. (and I am no where the coder you (and/or your team, assuming you have a team) are.)

 

[Wahoos4Life]

Maybe we can have a whole new section in the fourms, were Old dead threads go to lay, that way they are not in wthe way of current topics.