Zombie Threads

Gloomtastic!

Can threads that are over say, twelve months old be automatically locked?

Might save you Mods a bit of hassle.

Cherry Blossom

Sometimes it depends on the thread and the reason why someone has bumped it up. If it was for example an obscure topic or an update/progress report from the original poster I tend to leave it be as to me this is a good enough reason for bumping it up.

Of course this is very rarely the reason people bump up threads so perhaps lock by default and PM a mod if you want it re-opened might be a good way to go. Like all things Boards the main issue I imagine would be the potential effect that a robot like this would have on the site as regards the databases crashing etc.

Boards.ie: Paddy

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Like all things Boards the main issue I imagine would be the potential effect that a robot like this would have on the site as regards the databases crashing etc.

Quite the opposite actually, if we were to lock old threads and nuke people's subscriptions to them the database would be much happier.

Steve

I'd agree with an auto-lock / archive / whatever feature - especially if it made the hamsters happier.

As long as a mod could easily re-activate it on foot of a report or pm then it would keep most people happy.

Orim

Seems like a decent idea but just to point out it would need to be threads that haven't had a post in X time. I'm sure there's plenty of threads out there that over a year old and still used semi regularly.

WindSock

Well pretty much all the retro threads in the Retro forum are always valid.
I never understood why people get so pissed about others reviving old threads all the time. Often new users are drawn to the site by Googling a topic, signing up and adding something. I've seen new users being instructed in a crappy tone by mods to 'not do thissssssss, everrrrr!!!!' which is a fairly naff attitude to someone who just signed up.

Tombi!

WindSock wrote: »

Well pretty much all the retro threads in the Retro forum are always valid.
I never understood why people get so pissed about others reviving old threads all the time. Often new users are drawn to the site by Googling a topic, signing up and adding something. I've seen new users being instructed in a crappy tone by mods to 'not do thissssssss, everrrrr!!!!' which is a fairly naff attitude to someone who just signed up.

Stop modding the happy forum, you're not bitter and angry!

Seriously though, I think it's a bit stupid to necro threads if you're a new user. I usually look at the start date then the last 2 or 3 pages, just incase.
If a new user didn't notice that, they better be damn well new to the internet.

RolandIRL

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Stop modding the happy forum, you're not bitter and angry!

Seriously though, I think it's a bit stupid to necro threads if you're a new user. I usually look at the start date then the last 2 or 3 pages, just incase.
If a new user didn't notice that, they better be damn well new to the internet.

Different sites have different etiquette. Not everyone is familiar with vBulletin and may not realise commenting on a thread bumps it to the top of a forum (this doesn't happen on Reddit for example).

Some fora with a low new thread rate don't have a problem with necro threads. I don't think I ever locked a necro thread in NUIG during my tenure as mod there simply because the info was still relevant. The same probably can't be applied to somewhere like AH where a thread can be buried quickly and the discussion becomes outdated.

If it could be activated on a forum-by-forum basis with an opt-in system, I'd be in favour of this since the local mods know best about dealing with necro threads.

WindSock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

bitter,

bitter,

BITTER

Careful with using that word 'round these parts...




I dunno, a lot of necro zombie threads should be a case by case basis imo. I don't see a point to locking every thread just because it is a year or whatever old. It may still be valid even in 5 years. And besides, is it really a major inconvenience to lock a thread if needs be? That's what moderators are for, the site automatically locking down threads after x amount of time will create more hassle than its worth.

Sharpshooter

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Can threads that are over say, twelve months old be automatically locked?

Might save you Mods a bit of hassle.

I see where you are coming from but there is a lot more to it than what you are asking.:)

Threads drop very quickly in AHs for example, because new threads are being created all the time.

You could have a thread that started in 2008 about whatever was in the news at that time, it might get a lot of posts with no infractions / bans or reported posts, and eventually it dies due to lack of interest in the topic.

Why would a mod search and lock that thread due to lack of interest?

I have locked and deleted posts that bumped threads from 2004/5 ect because some one post wonder decided to bump and users who joined boards 2/3 years later posted without realising how old the thread was.

We tend to leave a bumped thread open if a long term user did so because the topic is still relevant and has been brought to the attention of the public again, so the discussion can continue and/if the same users are still posting.

Might save you Mods a bit of hassle.

If you are a regular user of AHs and suddenly see a thread with lots of posts that you didn't notice before then check the first post for the date the thread was started, if it's just a bump for the sake of it, (Spam/Troll) then report it and we will act on it.

Boards.ie: Paddy

RolandIRL wrote: »

Different sites have different etiquette. Not everyone is familiar with vBulletin and may not realise commenting on a thread bumps it to the top of a forum (this doesn't happen on Reddit for example).

Some fora with a low new thread rate don't have a problem with necro threads. I don't think I ever locked a necro thread in NUIG during my tenure as mod there simply because the info was still relevant. The same probably can't be applied to somewhere like AH where a thread can be buried quickly and the discussion becomes outdated.

If it could be activated on a forum-by-forum basis with an opt-in system, I'd be in favour of this since the local mods know best about dealing with necro threads.

I love the terminology, necro threads, zombie threads, the living dead... what about: Jesus threads?

Anyway, the notion of doing it no a forum by forum basis probably isn't a bad one. It's a bit more complicated than a simple cut-off time approach but not much more complicated.

MugMugs

Boards.ie: Paddy wrote: »

I love the terminology, necro threads, zombie threads, the living dead... what about: Jesus threads?

Anyway, the notion of doing it no a forum by forum basis probably isn't a bad one. It's a bit more complicated than a simple cut-off time approach but not much more complicated.

I was waiting for "V Bulletin wouldn't accommodate this"

I'm quite surprised with your response Paddy. Do you reckon it could happen any time soon ?

Doc. Brown

WindSock wrote: »

Careful with using that word 'round these parts...

Indeed

I never understood why people get so pissed about others reviving old threads all the time. Often new users are drawn to the site by Googling a topic, signing up and adding something. I've seen new users being instructed in a crappy tone by mods to 'not do thissssssss, everrrrr!!!!' which is a fairly naff attitude to someone who just signed up.

That's what moderators are for, the site automatically locking down threads after x amount of time will create more hassle than its worth.

+1

Sometimes doing a harmless Jesus is the only option and the comparison between when a thread was started and when it was bumped could even become a topic of discussion in and of itself.

Won't someone please think of the time-travellers!

EDIT:

Hmm, seems an Admin/Mod has now remoderated that thread having seen this post here I'm presuming (a day after it had been locked by an AH Mod with a witty reply) and not only deleted the "harmless" revival post but also deleted all the other replies to the thread too. One wonders why that was deemed necessary.

EDIT II:

The revival post itself now restored .. kinda odd.