Closing old threads

looksee

I just tried to do a search of this forum to see if there was anything about old threads being revived, but the search would not allow 'old' so I didn't get very far.

So apologies if this has come up before, but I have recently seen a few instances where someone has put a reply on an old thread, and a mod has asked them not to revive old threads, and has closed it.

This could be a bit off-putting to a newbie, and even an oldie who somehow got onto a thread and didn't realise how old it was. So would it not be a better idea to close threads after a period of time rather than waiting for them to be revived? Is that possible?

javaboy

Try searching using the word zombie instead of the word old. Honestly.

looksee

Thank you. I appreciate your input.

Rovi

Seriously, old threads that get 'brought back to life' are known as 'zombie threads'.

Search the forum with the term 'zombie' and you'll get a load of results.

WindSock

No it would not be a good idea to autolock threads after a certain time imo, especially in the All Things Retro forum, as many threads get revived and attract new users to the site via googling snippets of information that they may harbour from their humble pasts.

looksee

javaboy wrote: »

Try searching using the word zombie instead of the word old. Honestly.

Sorry, I read your 'honestly' as meaning 'are you stupid or what' when you really meant 'its true'.

But whether they are zombies or what ever they are called, I think if they are going to be left open then it should be possible to ressurect them without being 'told off' and the thread closed. The thread gets closed either way, so why not do it before people make the mistake?

Lurching

I dont see any issue with reviving old threads. If the new post is relevant to the original topic, whats the problem?

johnny_ultimate

Personally, I'd feel if the topic is more than say a year or two old, it's worth starting a new thread. If something from 2006 is bumped - and I always find it odd how much work sometimes has to be gone through search-wise to bump said thread! - well then the original posters in the thread are probably not going to retort for plenty of reasons (quoting a four year old post doesn't guarantee a response from the OP!), and the information could be outdated. They're best closed. No-ones going to complain about a new thread discussing a topic that hasn't been mentioned in five years. Yet four year old posts on a subject - especially in technological areas - aren't going be all that relevant.

Bob the Builder

Autolock would suit for some forums, but not for many of them tbh...

WindSock wrote: »

No it would not be a good idea to autolock threads after a certain time imo, especially in the All Things Retro forum...

Stop thinking about yourself all the time... For you, It's all me, me, me........

Oryx

The only problem with old threads is you dont always realise they are old. So you go to comment on some discussion about poor service in x shop and you realise that the OP was made in 2005.

Sometimes resurected threads are just a waste of time, some are ok, but should really have a post within them to say 'bumped from the year whatever'. Only threads where the subject is pretty much dead and buried should be closed imo.

javaboy

Oryx wrote: »

Only threads where the subject is pretty much dead and buried should be closed imo.

Or just moved to Dev's new condolence forum.

4zn76tysfajdxp

looksee wrote: »

Sorry, I read your 'honestly' as meaning 'are you stupid or what' when you really meant 'its true'.

Truthfully, he probably meant both.

javaboy

Nah I was being sincere. Wish I'd used that word instead. Honestly sounds pretty sarcastic. Really.

4zn76tysfajdxp

javaboy wrote: »

Nah I was being sincere. Wish I'd used that word instead. Honestly sounds pretty sarcastic. Really.

Yeah, right.

WindSock

Bob the Builder wrote: »

Autolock would suit for some forums, but not for many of them tbh...

Most things like these are generally site-wide.

Stop thinking about yourself all the time... For you, It's all me, me, me........

I am not my (moderated) forum

Gage Gray Roadside wrote: »

Yeah, right.

Of course! :rolleyes:

My name is URL

Here's a nice example of a necrobump'd thread that should have been left open, imo

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055294586

I just happened to venture into the Philosophy forum and noticed it, thought I'd post it here while it was being discussed.

Just because it's an old thread doesn't mean that it isn't relevant today, and given the fact that the poster was new to the site; it isn't going to instill a sense of ease in them or make them find the place very welcoming. It's not rocket science, there should be some discretion in moderation instead of the concrete idea that any bumped thread is a bad thing

Aidric

Some mods definately take the cleaning up process too far. This thread was closed in the Limerick forum recently for being a zombie thread, even though it was only 9 months old.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055663728&page=8

Dudess

Once it's not "time sensitive", don't see the need to lock/delete it tbh. Wildly out of date though, yes.

Magenta

looksee wrote: »

I just tried to do a search of this forum to see if there was anything about old threads being revived, but the search would not allow 'old' so I didn't get very far.

So apologies if this has come up before, but I have recently seen a few instances where someone has put a reply on an old thread, and a mod has asked them not to revive old threads, and has closed it.

This could be a bit off-putting to a newbie, and even an oldie who somehow got onto a thread and didn't realise how old it was. So would it not be a better idea to close threads after a period of time rather than waiting for them to be revived? Is that possible?

In some cases, you get posters who start arguing with people over things they posted years ago. Like here - Hobbes posted that in 2007.

Dude111

WindSock wrote:

No it would not be a good idea to autolock threads after a certain time imo, especially in the All Things Retro forum, as many threads get revived and attract new users to the site via googling snippets of information that they may harbour from their humble pasts.

And there is NOTHING WRONG with when a thread was last replied to!

I have found alot of good threads since being here with last replys from 2004,etc and i am glad the staff doesnt cut me down for replying to them...

I mostly find this problem on USA run sites,sites with staff from other countries (such as this) dont make such a big deal about nothing!!

Magenta

Dude111 wrote: »

And there is NOTHING WRONG with when a thread was last replied to!

I have found alot of good threads since being here with last replys from 2004,etc and i am glad the staff doesnt cut me down for replying to them...

I mostly find this problem on USA run sites,sites with staff from other countries (such as this) dont make such a big deal about nothing!!

So say for example someone digs up a thread from say 2004 from someone asking "What's the best phone/mp3 player out at the moment".
You think this thread is going to be relevant in 2010 given how many models of phones and mp3 players come out every month?!

javaboy

Magenta wrote: »

So say for example someone digs up a thread from say 2004 from someone asking "What's the best phone/mp3 player out at the moment".
You think this thread is going to be relevant in 2010 given how many models of phones and mp3 players come out every month?!

Obviously not. So a mod will probably close it if that happens. What's the problem?

Magenta

javaboy wrote: »

Obviously not. So a mod will probably close it if that happens. What's the problem?

My post was directed to Dude111.

javaboy

Magenta wrote: »

My post was directed to Dude111.

Perhaps a PM would have been more appropriate?

Sharpshooter

javaboy wrote: »

Perhaps a PM would have been more appropriate?

But this is Feedback, I thought Magenta gave good feedback there, why suggest a Pm?

Earthhorse

My name is URL wrote: »

Here's a nice example of a necrobump'd thread that should have been left open, imo

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055294586

Aidric wrote: »

Some mods definately take the cleaning up process too far. This thread was closed in the Limerick forum recently for being a zombie thread, even though it was only 9 months old.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055663728&page=8

I cannot understand thread locks like this, personally.

What harm were these resurrected threads causing?

Magenta

javaboy wrote: »

Perhaps a PM would have been more appropriate?

It kind of defeats the purpose of a public message forum... And I don't use PMs, except for mods and admins. If I have something to say, I say it in public

WindSock

Magenta wrote: »

My post was directed to Dude111.

Magenta wrote: »

It kind of defeats the purpose of a public message forum...

Uh huh.

Oh sorry, I guess that last post was directed at javaboy, maybe I shouldn't have replied

javaboy

WindSock wrote: »

Uh huh.

Oh sorry, I guess that last post was directed at javaboy, maybe I shouldn't have replied

Someone gets it.

Magenta

WindSock wrote: »

Uh huh.

Oh sorry, I guess that last post was directed at javaboy, maybe I shouldn't have replied

javaboy wrote: »

Someone gets it.

Is this a thread about resurrecting old threads, or a thread about making digs at me?

Earthhorse

Magenta wrote: »

Is this a thread about resurrecting old threads, or a thread about making digs at me?

No one is making digs at you. The point is that, regardless of who you addressed your original post to, anyone can reply to you.

Fanny Cradock

It might be handy to have some auto-generated notification indicating that the thread was over a year old or whatever.

Sharpshooter

Earthhorse wrote: »

No one is making digs at you. The point is that, regardless of who you addressed your original post to, anyone can reply to you.

Thanks Earthhorse, I was slow on the uptake there.

Earthhorse

Sharpshooter wrote: »

Thanks Earthhorse, I was slow on the uptake there.

I didn't get it at first either, tbh. Took a minute for the penny to drop.

Oryx

RopeDrink wrote: »

That wouldn't be handy at all in my opinion - To implement that would take a lot of work for absolutely no reward.

A script to send a PM to the appropriate Mods/CMods stating, yo yo, that thread over there 40 pages down that you can't see is now 2 years old, keep an eye on it!

Not particularly handy considering old threads are absolutely harmless and don't need any Monitoring at all unless bumped - It doesn't do anything that a simple 5 second judgement call from a Moderator can't do *IF* an old thread is bumped and requires a decision to either be left alone or locked.

I can't honestly believe that there is anything out there that needs to be considered when it comes to dealing with old threads... Nothing.

I understood that to mean you get notified if you try to post on such a thread. Same as you get a notification screen if you try to enter a forum youre not allowed in. Except this could let you past if you choose to post anyway?

Aidric

Strike 2, same mod as in my earlier post. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055793493&page=3
I fail to see the reason for closing this thread. Ok, it was from January of this year but it's the sort of discussion that could carry on as the OP's idea progresssed. It wasn't doing any harm, nor was it bumped for trolling or non sensical reasons.

biko

Often a simple PM to the closing mod will be enough for them to reconsider. I know I have on occasion.
Maybe instead of "OMG you closed the thread you ****" try "If you don't mind, please reopen thread because I think it still has value."
When you start with "Why" you risk getting people's back up.

AnCapaillMor

Its beginning to get me, nevermind a blanket lock on threads > X time. Discretion or relevance should be brought into the equation by a mod. a thread informing or asking a question should be the last to be closed. Someone might be asking about a service in an area, a thread like that should never be closed. An informative thread should never be closed unless it goes off track.

To me on some boards its like a script is being ran checking new posts against thread start time and threads are closed without discretion or checking for relevance.


Case in point, to me it was informing the limerick area of an Arsenals supporters club for a meet up. Post it on the soccer forum and it'd be on the 2nd or 3rd page in an hour and lost. I don't see the point in someone finding that thread having to start a new thread and say "hey about that thread you started a few months back."

Discretion and common sense is needed not blanket closing. Yes zombie threads can be annoying but locking thread without discretion is more annoying.

billy the squid

AnCapaillMor wrote: »

Its beginning to get me, nevermind a blanket lock on threads > X time. Discretion or relevance should be brought into the equation by a mod. a thread informing or asking a question should be the last to be closed. Someone might be asking about a service in an area, a thread like that should never be closed. An informative thread should never be closed unless it goes off track.

To me on some boards its like a script is being ran checking new posts against thread start time and threads are closed without discretion or checking for relevance.


Case in point, to me it was informing the limerick area of an Arsenals supporters club for a meet up. Post it on the soccer forum and it'd be on the 2nd or 3rd page in an hour and lost. I don't see the point in someone finding that thread having to start a new thread and say "hey about that thread you started a few months back."

Discretion and common sense is needed not blanket closing. Yes zombie threads can be annoying but locking thread without discretion is more annoying.

That thread was not closed for being a zombie, it was closed to prevent the OP bumping it imperpituity when it wasn't going to get a reply.

AnCapaillMor

Sorry getting it mixed with the olds i was kinda going for closure in general.The thread was doing no harm and it was the first i saw of it and was genuinely interested in the subject. Any newcomers could miss out on it. I'm too lazy to search stuff 90% of the time(as i'm sure others are too) but if i see somethn that peeks my interest i'll look at it, like that thread.

billy the squid

AnCapaillMor wrote: »

Sorry getting it mixed with the olds i was kinda going for closure in general.The thread was doing no harm and it was the first i saw of it and was genuinely interested in the subject. Any newcomers could miss out on it. I'm too lazy to search stuff 90% of the time(as i'm sure others are too) but if i see somethn that peeks my interest i'll look at it, like that thread.

The rule on the closure of old threads is clearly there in the charter of the Limerick city forum. I wrote the rule when the charter was created and have applied it fairly.

If more people read forum charters before posting then it would save a lot of unnecessery angst.

I can't help it if people are too lazy to read the forum rules.

Dudess

I'm aware of the irony of bumping this thread, but last night there was an old thread (from 2007) on malapropisms bumped and it was first locked, then deleted. Locking it with a "Start a new thread" message would have surely sufficed - it was pretty rude and off-hand towards users imo for it to be made just vanish with no explanation. And it's an example of a non time-sensitive topic - what difference does it make that it was started in 2007?

28064212

The 'malapropisms' thread wasn't deleted, only the "bump" post was deleted. That has the side-effect of meaning its last post was in 2007, so in the listing of the threads, it appears way down the list.

Sharpshooter's explanation is in the Help Desk thread here. Could probably have been handled with a little more care. Given it was apparently the reviver's first post, they may not have realised what they were doing, so locking it with a message to start a new thread, or even just an on-thread admonishment without locking it would have seemed sufficient.

OTOH, you couldn't pay me to mod AH, so what do I know

Tallon

Sharpshooter wrote:

The AHs mods have no problem with new threads but dragging a thread from 2007 just to get your first post is not on.

Absolutely a ridiculous thing to say, is it a requirement of boards.ie that your first post be a brand new thread?

Ridiculous

Insect Overlord

Sharpshooter wrote: »

I deleated it as it was from 2007 and by the OP's admission should have been posted in Humour.

Is retrospective moderation allowed? Locking a thread because of a mistaken post three years ago could set a ridiculous precedent.

Dudess

Rule for the sake of a rule tbh. I see the point in rules, I don't see the point in rules that serve no purpose other than to exist.

Just saw the Help Desk thread - wrong forum? Bull**** frankly. It's totally an AH type thread.

OutlawPete

Dudess wrote: »

Just saw the Help Desk thread - wrong forum? Bull**** frankly. It's totally an AH type thread.

Some mods get AH and some don't.

Some also get it when it suits them and then don't when it doesn't.

Anyway, my opinion would be that most threads should be fine when bumped.

A thread from 2005 like:

"Will we ever get a decent national football stadium"

.. should be closed and a new thread started as most points on the thread are most likely now redundant.

However, a thread like:

"What's your first ever post on Boards?"

.. should be left alone in my eyes as the replies are timeless and will always be relevant and worth reading.

A good moderator should be able the difference, shouldn't they?

Xavi6

OutlawPete wrote: »

Some mods get AH and some don't.

Some also get it when it suits them and then don't when it doesn't.

That's it in a nutshell really.

Every thread in AH could be shipped off to another forum, but AH has its own
'tone' as such when it comes to its content and your thread would certainly fit the bill.

The moderating of AH is baffling at the best of times, and while there are some really great mods of the forum, there are a couple who provide head scratching on a regular basis.

I won't name names as it's been done before and we all know them at this stage but it would be nice if those in question took at a look at themselves and did the best thing by the forum.

Terry

It's simple. It doesn't need any indepth analysis.

If the bump in on topic and relevant, then leave it open. If it's not, then close it.

No ifs and buts. Just as above.

Super-Rush

Terry wrote: »

It's simple. It doesn't need any indepth analysis.

If the bump in on topic and relevant, then leave it open. If it's not, then close it.

No ifs and buts. Just as above.

Thats a fair point, but so is this. The option is there to start a new thread.

WindSock

Was the thread actually deleted? That's way out of line, imo. Moderators don't own threads and should not be given free reign to enforce their own rules at whim, at least without strong justification.