P.I. Threads

kmart6

Why are threads in P.I. Being closed just because the OP hasn't posted in a week?

Have never noticed this happening before so what's with the recent trend?

The OP may not be posting but may still be looking for advice! Just don't see why it's been done!

minidazzler

I would guess it's to stop people from bumping old threads 4 or 5 months down the line. I've seen that happen a few times at least. Why not just PM a mod and ask?

kmart6

I can understand there'd be no need for threads from 4 or 5 months to be dragged up...but not being able to post in a thread after 10 days is ridiculous to me!

Didn't PM a Mod cause I believe if there is an actual reason for it this thread will then be there for others to see!

minidazzler

If it's taking 10 days for the OP to come back then they probably have the advice they need on thread. Any thread that is still near the front page and recieving posts on PI after that time is because of something controversial in the thread, and will have gone past the stage where people are posting helpful things and probably into a debate. I think I have only seen one thread on there that went on a long time and was not a debate but was support the whole way for someone who took the advice and did actually turn their life around AFAIK.

If it's for an OP to keep a kind of Blog, then I would think PI isn't the place. There is nothing more frustrating than an OP on PI who recieves a lot of great advice to get past or confront their issue, but refuses to take the advice and still comes back looking for "easier" ways or whatever.

But as I said, it's more likely to stop people bumping the threads down the line, if the mods leave the threads open for say 30 days or you may get someone with a similar problem posting about it in an already open thread which is a non-goer given every problem is unique even if similar.

(This is just conjecture on my part though, I'm guessing)


EDIT: I just looked back on old threads on PI, very few are closed...just the normal stuff that gets closed there.

kmart6

There are 3 threads in Relationship Issues that have been closed in the last week just because the OP hasn't posted in a week!

I have seen many threads in P.I. Where the OP hasn't been able to post for a week or two due to their circumstances so I'm just looking for some clarification on it!

Ickle Magoo

It depends - generally the first page of PI is the busiest, if the OP has posted a thread and then nothing for days on end then locking the thread saves the first page being cluttered with threads being bumped by posters responding based on a search or topic of interest to them rather than date, especially when OP's have no further interest or need for the thread and other threads with active OP's or new threads with no responses get knocked onto page 3 or 4.

It can sometimes be quite obvious that a posters initial thoughts are the opposite to the general consensus and they are not going to revisit the thread - and others are locked because either via PM or in the unreg queue there has been a request to lock the thread from the OP...or because they refer to illegal activities, are not PI's, threaten suicide or request medical advice.

On other occasions it's because the topic of the thread is a contentious issue and it's just unhelpful bickering keeping it going or debate more suitable for another forum. It may have been targeted by unreg spam and as no-one else has posted in 10 days or so it's pointless keeping it open for the sheer hell of it - sometimes threads have reached a natural conclusion, everyone agrees, the advice given has been comprehensive and it's clear that there is only one sensible course of action the OP should take. It could be a serial PI poster or even a poster who has been highlighted as a troll or who's thread is becoming more of a personal blog/rant than a request for advice from others.

PI exists as an advice forum for the posters that post threads there, it isn't for for others entertainment nor for posters to piggy-back or hi-jack threads others have posted and sometimes when that happens threads are locked after complaint or reported posts, sometimes from the OP of the thread.

So, lots of reasons why threads are locked.

MugMugs

I assume a PM with a request can have the thread re opened if the OP wishes Ickle Magoo?

Otis Driftwood

MugMugs wrote: »

I assume a PM with a request can have the thread re opened if the OP wishes Ickle Magoo?

Thats the way it worked when I modded PI so I presume the same practice is in place.

MugMugs

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

I assume a PM with a request can have the thread re opened if the OP wishes Ickle Magoo?

Thats the way it worked when I modded PI so I presume the same practice is in place.

Don't really see an issue so. If the OP can have the thread reopened then there's no issue really.

Taltos

Yup - can confirm it is.

We (me) just need to balance the request as always with the way the thread is going. For example if the thread was closed with a note advising the OP to contact their GP we can't really open it.

Similarly as Ickle Magoo stated above - if a thread that is drawing alot of contention is requested to be reopened we have to balance that request against the overhead this one thread is taking from everything else, at least in my mind. We can try to address these issues with Mod Notes but if we find that our advisories are being ignored then there is only so much you can do.

I think over the last few months I can only recall one that was not reopened - and in that case the OP was using PI as a blog, advice was not being taken on board and each post was just a progression of venting behaviour with either no regard for the advice given or blatant telling the posters that they just didn't get it. For the most part though when requested threads are reopened.

(This was just meant to be a simple yes, guess I lost track again).

Chinafoot

MugMugs wrote: »

I assume a PM with a request can have the thread re opened if the OP wishes Ickle Magoo?

And what if the OP is posting unregistered and wishes to remain anonymous?

I hadn't seen too much of this closing stuff but there was one closed yesterday because the OP hadn't posted in over 10 days. Given that the last 10 days have included Christmas and New Years I thought that was a bit rash.

Is 10 days the cut-off point now?

minidazzler

Chinafoot wrote: »

And what if the OP is posting unregistered and wishes to remain anonymous?

I hadn't seen too much of this closing stuff but there was one closed yesterday because the OP hadn't posted in over 10 days. Given that the last 10 days have included Christmas and New Years I thought that was a bit rash.

Is 10 days the cut-off point now?

That was an RI that was bumped from page 6, not by the OP, but by people who just found it. The OP hadn't posted since about 17 days ago and there last post seemed very like they got what they needed for the most part.

It looks, to me, like it's just threads bumped by people other than the OP are being closed if it's bumped from far back, which is fair enough, because people could write huge replies to a practically dead thread since, I at least, and many others I would guess, don't check the date on the thread when I post.

Ickle Magoo

I don't think there is any specified cut off, the only thread I can find closed yesterday with a mod note the OP hadn't been back for over 10 days was originally posted on the 10th Dec and the OP had been back to it regularly until the 18th - nearly a month to get advice with no topic progression isn't exactly jumping the gun...

Beruthiel

kmart6, you will have to state your examples and supply links.
Making a generic comment that nobody can substantiate is not helpful.

kmart6

Right I'll go find them, it stood out at the time cause there was 3 or 4 together!

One Only open for 5 days!

Two Only open for 4 days!

Three Only open for 4 days!

Chinafoot

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think there is any specified cut off, the only thread I can find closed yesterday with a mod note the OP hadn't been back for over 10 days was originally posted on the 10th Dec and the OP had been back to it regularly until the 18th - nearly a month to get advice with no topic progression isn't exactly jumping the gun...

The reason I asked if 10 days was the cut off point was because 10 days was stated during the closing of the thread. Not 17 days, not over 2 weeks but 10 days. Seemed rather specific.

kmart6

Chinafoot wrote: »

The reason I asked if 10 days was the cut off point was because 10 days was stated during the closing of the thread. Not 17 days, not over 2 weeks but 10 days. Seemed rather specific.

A week was specified in the threads I've linked....but none of them had been a week!

Overheal

Primarily, I think if it's a problem for the OP they can speak with the PI mods about it, who can be reasonably trusted to act discretely about a PM sent from an OP's actual account. I've done similar things in my own anon PI threads if I feel a post needs reporting.

I'm with Ickle on this though. A lack of response from the OP doesn't mean it needs to stay open, they can easily see what's written and in most cases will likely have read it and chosen deliberately not to post back in the thread, for any number of reasons.

I don't think there should be any mechanical rule on how long a thread needs to stay open; it's a human judgement call, that the mods tackle.

dudara

From my viewpoint, it's usually done because posters other than the OP are posting frequently, and may be going round in circles or failing to add further value to the thread.

It's a subjective call on the part of the PI mods, but a simple PM to a mod will suffice to have the thread reopened.

pickarooney

I can't speak for everyone but if I had opened a thread anonymously for whatever reason there's no chance I'd use my real account to PM a mod to ask for it to be opened. How would a mod know the person PMing them was even the OP?

minidazzler

pickarooney wrote: »

I can't speak for everyone but if I had opened a thread anonymously for whatever reason there's no chance I'd use my real account to PM a mod to ask for it to be opened. How would a mod know the person PMing them was even the OP?

You could just start an anon thread under the same username you used and request it be reopened couldn't you? That thread wouldn't be posted I would assume, but the mods would see it and make a decision on whether to reopen.

dudara

pickarooney wrote: »

I can't speak for everyone but if I had opened a thread anonymously for whatever reason there's no chance I'd use my real account to PM a mod to ask for it to be opened. How would a mod know the person PMing them was even the OP?

Again, it's a combination of experience, intuition and subjectivity from the PI mods. We've seen a lot of stuff in PI, and we're pretty sensitive to personal requests.

Faith

I've just noticed this done here, and it's gotten my back up. 8 minutes after the OP posted saying she'd directed her boyfriend to the thread, it was closed. She couldn't have posted anything extra, even if she'd wanted to. She explicitly stated "If I have any updates if he reads the thread I will post back". Like others, I would never contact the moderators using my real username, requesting a thread to be re-opened, and I wouldn't go to the effort of starting a new thread just to ask for it to be opened. I'd be quite pissed off that it had been closed in the first place, tbh.

I understand where the mods are coming from, but I find that type of action over-bearing and off-putting. Threads can develop on from the original issue which the OP might want to discuss. I'd suggest the mods post something along the lines of "OP, we will close this thread in 24 hours unless you request for us to leave it open". Then the OP actually gets a say in the decision, and it still stops random posters debating issues in circles that add nothing to the discussion.

Ickle Magoo

Did you PM the mod and ask - it could be they just missed that bit?

Faith

I was going to send a PM to all the mods, but then I remembered this thread and thought I might be redirected here anyway. That thread is just an example though - regardless of whether the OP says anything about coming back, I think there should be a warning post put in before closing the thread to warn the OP that action will be taken. I've started PI threads in the past and just watched the replies, rather than constantly posting. If I'd been warned that the thread would be closed because I hadn't posted again, it might have spurred me into doing something. I just think that that's a fairer system. And while we know PI isn't there for our entertainment, it's easy to get invested in threads and want to know the outcome. It can be disappointing for readers to realise the thread has been closed and the OP won't be able to update it also .

Beruthiel

Faith wrote: »

I've just noticed this done here, and it's gotten my back up. 8 minutes after the OP posted saying she'd directed her boyfriend to the thread, it was closed.

Clearly that was human error Faith and a quick PM to Taltos would have sorted it out.
I have reopened the thread.

Ickle Magoo

I don't think posters being deprived of potentially salacious updates is a good enough reason to keep threads open, tbh, nor do I think we should be puting any pressure on posters to keep posting or bumping threads needlessly. I don't think PI should be used in lieu of a blog or as some kind of episoded soap opera, it's function is just to dispense whatever advice posters that those happen upon it are prepared to give for the issue posted and hopefully help an OP on their way - once that function is complete then the thread has served it's purpose.

An addition to the charter that posters are not to request updates was even deemed necessary because it was clear quite a few view the issues of others as some kind of entertainment/cheerleading event they deserve to hear updates on or the conclusion of - and that is really not in the best interests of those OP's.

Faith

Beruthiel wrote: »

Clearly that was human error Faith and a quick PM to Taltos would have sorted it out.
I have reopened the thread.

This isn't intended to be any kind of attack. That was simply the post I chose to use as an example. I'm sure it was nothing more than human error, but since a thread already existed on the topic, I chose to discuss it here rather than try to hold a PM discussion with several moderators on the same topic. My issue is not with Taltos' action, it's with whether it's necessary to close threads without warning that haven't broken any rules.

Tbh, I don't see any point in debating this further as it's clear the PI mods have made their decision on this and will be sticking with it . That's fine, I respect that, but I just wanted to add my 2 cents that I think locking threads, unless there's a problem with them, is a bit unnecessary. Feedback, if you will .

Beruthiel

Well put Ickle Magoo, PI isn't there for the entertainment of others.
It's there for the sole purpose of the OP asking, and getting advice.
It's not a soap opera.

Taltos

Hi Faith - thanks for the input - I will try to take it on board.

Beruthial - thanks for taking action on this so fast, normally I only check in on Feedback 2 or 3 times a day so I may have missed this.

In terms of why I closed it, the response from Ickle above pretty much summarises my logic, since the OPs initial issue has been addressed by their conversation with their OH I felt there was a good indicator to close the thread. However on reading that the OP has now directed their OH to the thread in question the last thing I wanted to encourage was an on-thread discussion between partners instead of the face-to-face discussion that needs to happen.

I really like your suggestion though of a prompt to close instead of just closing.

Hope this helps a bit in seeing where I was coming from, cannot guarantee I will not take the same approach in future but I will try to look at it a bit more from the OPs standpoint.

T.

Ickle Magoo

TBH, I'd rather add to the charter that if an OP wants a thread unlocked, they can contact a mod & be assured it is in confidence than encourage a flurry of unnecessary responses or needlessly bump a thread with a pre-emptive lock warning...

As I posted earlier, there are many reasons why threads are locked, not all obvious to the casual observer and not necessarily something that can or should be broadcast or given a formal warning of imminent closure. I think in long run such a system would cause more confusion then solve tbh...but I do agree there should be a fairly robust reason for locking a thread as opposed to letting it drop off the front pages naturally.