Why so many old threads?

emmeygirl

And on similar subjects?

Also, if admin dislike us reprising old threads (as seems the case following a comment by one after my post in an older thread) then why not remove them? It's YOUR responsibility if it's something that is discouraged.

I'm not a mindreader!

Honestly I have never seen so many complaints about admin/mods on one site in all my life!

It is indicative of the useability and state of the site in general and reflects badly you do realise?

Zaph

Moved from Feed Forward Public

emmeygirl

Mountains out of molehills? Hardly! I am a member of a few sites similar in size to this, and there aren't anything like the number of complaints about admin/mods as there are on this site. And I was speaking of complaints in general, not specifically about old threads.

I am giving you feedback, a newbie's impression of the site. And I'm afraid it isn't a positive one!

As admin it is your job to moderate/remove threads and posts you don't wish added to, and generally keep the forum clutter-free, is it not?

No need to take it personally, or make generalisations about my opinions simply because you don't agree with them. That's what forums are for surely?

Insect Overlord

How on earth did you think it would be a good idea to drag up a thread from 2004?

And how is it all the site's fault for you thinking without acting?

emmeygirl

Thinking without acting? I posted in a thread about adverts. Correct me if I'm wrong but we still have adverts today do we not.

If we aren't supposed to post in threads what is the point of a forum site? It makes a nonsense of this site's raison d'etre.

And I have not been personal. Kindly show me the same courtesy!

tbh

Insect Overlord wrote: »

How on earth did you think it would be a good idea to drag up a thread from 2004?

And how is it all the site's fault for you thinking without acting?

In fairness, the worst that can happen is that the person who drags up the old thread gets frustrated because they don't realise the original contributors have moved on. Generally dragging up an old thread doesn't cause any problems. I sometimes think that mods give out about it because its always been frowned on, without really giving any thought to why its being frowned on. It's frustrating when a users makes a valid addition to an old thread and the thread gets closed just because its old.

Posy

For a new poster, it can be hard to tell what to do sometimes.
Start a new thread? There's one here already: Merged. Add to an old one? This thread is from 2011: Locked.

I do think common sense does play a part though. "Oh, if you're still looking for a green bikini for your holiday, I just seen one in Penneys!!" is not going to be much use to the OP if they started the thread in 2005.

I find threads about a year old hard to judge sometimes, not 'zombie' but not exactly new either. But if it's still a relevant topic, I wouldn't see anything wrong with posting on a thread from a year or two ago. Any earlier and you'd really be better off starting a new one.

If you're new and unsure though, PMing a mod can help and they will tell you whether to 'bump' or not.

humbert

It's a fair point even if it was put forward in a rather demanding fashion. There are threads on other sites that span many years and on other sites you cannot add to them after as little as 60 days.

The thread the OP added to could have continued in the same vain as it had begun after then OP's bump and may have made for interesting reading. A chronology of terrible ads, if you like.

My understanding is that it was discouraged to prevent threads growing very long as they were harder on the servers. I'm curious to know what the general reason is? (Obviously in many cases the topic has long ceased to be relevant and reviving the thread clearly pointless)

As for the general level of complaints here, you really need to be around longer to make an informed decision. In comparing Boards to other bulletin boards you may not be comparing like with like.

Also, why not lock threads after a certain duration?

Mr E

Oops, this was me. Sorry if I caused any offense, emmeygirl - it wasn't intended. The fact of the matter is that very few of the ads on that thread are on TV any more, and indeed, only about 15 of those posters are still active on this site (I checked!)

There is an active thread in the TV forum called Adverts you despise - feel free to join the discussion there and vent to your heart's content!

And no, I don't know why "Barry Scott" (AKA Neil Burgess) is still shouting at people 8 years later.

Sad Professor

I've noticed a lot more zombie threads since the new search engine. Maybe the site needs a better search results algorithm? I assume a lot of the newbies who make the mistake of bumping 9 year old threads are finding them via search. Type just about anything and see how old some of the results are.

Steve

tbh wrote: »

In fairness, the worst that can happen is that the person who drags up the old thread gets frustrated because they don't realise the original contributors have moved on. Generally dragging up an old thread doesn't cause any problems. I sometimes think that mods give out about it because its always been frowned on, without really giving any thought to why its being frowned on. It's frustrating when a users makes a valid addition to an old thread and the thread gets closed just because its old.

^^^ Gold.

Speaking as a mod who has probably done that very thing at some point.

We all live and learn, that's what feedback is for.

hullaballoo

Yeah, tbh nailed it, tbh. Soz.

IIRC, locking old threads became the norm because people used to bump old threads to get them back to the top of the forum, for no real reason. Adding something useful to a thread that happens to have fallen down the page numbers is really no problem.

Micky Dolenz

tbh wrote: »

In fairness, the worst that can happen is that the person who drags up the old thread gets frustrated because they don't realise the original contributors have moved on. Generally dragging up an old thread doesn't cause any problems. I sometimes think that mods give out about it because its always been frowned on, without really giving any thought to why its being frowned on. It's frustrating when a users makes a valid addition to an old thread and the thread gets closed just because its old.

Agreed, it is also worth noting that the Television Charter does not forbid zombie threads, on the contrary, states:

Before starting a new thread, please check see if there is already a similar thread existing. (Duplicate threads will be removed)(if there is already a thread on one particular programme/series, do not start another)

I do think the OP has a valid point, although I do understand why threads that were started years ago get closed. It should always be on a case by case basis and should be allowed run if they are still relevant, imo.

Dades

emmeygirl, you weren't banned or warned or given an infraction. That's hardly worth a site-wide generalisation on moderating? The thread you posted in was nearly 9 years old! I'm struggling to thing of something in a thread where the posts are still relevant after that long.

The onus is on new users of the forum to use some judgment when posting. In your defence, perhaps something should be added to the notices to new posters to not drag up old threads unless there's an obvious reason to.

A big problem with bumping old threads is that existing users sometimes see new posts and end up reading the whole thing before realising its hopelessly outdated. But since there exists threads that still have relevance, even after years, it doesn't make sense to close all older threads. Instead we rely on the mods to judge when a thread should be closed, as it happens, often after it has been resurrected.

A big deal wasn't made of your bumping an old thread, I don't why you're making a big deal of it here.

hullaballoo

I have the impression (rightly or not) that most charters have a similar proviso re searching for existing threads on the same topic. It used to be fairly standard. That's what makes the zombie thread rule a little bit counter-productive, imo.

emmeygirl

Dades, you can't have your cake and eat it; either a thread is irrelavant, in which case it should be closed, and close it sooner rather than later. That way nobody can add to it, prompting mods/admin to close it. Think of the time and effort it would save, on the part of the poster innocently posting, and the mods chasing such posts, investigating and then closing the thread.

In turn the result would be no need for posts like this. Although my post was a query, with suggestions included, not intended as a 'groan' thread, but nevertheless I digress......

Less generated query and, even worse, complaint threads means less work for you, and suggests a well moderated site. There you go, here 3 days and I've suggested a route whereby your workload could be lessened.

But if the thread is still relevant, age irrespective, then I don't see any disadvantage in letting it run. As I said you can't have it both ways.

As an aside the youngest thread I've come across in my chosen catagories is already 3 months old, so it's Hobson's choice; contribute to an older thread, or start yet another duplicate on exactly the same subject. This in turn clogs up the forum surely? And makes finding a certain thread even more of a challenge, for mods and users alike.

I haven't made a big fuss; I have asked a question and made observations. And they are honest observations from a new site user, uncoloured by any bias or affiliation. You could use it constructively. Surely an uncluttered, easy-to-use site, where users know they are ok to post, and mods aren't chasing zombie threads, is the ideal?

As a last point, I used my discretion in chosing to post. I deemed the thread still relevant, as obnoxious adverts were, are, and probably ever shall be, a fact of life. And I made it relevant to the circumstances by choosing a very long-running ad as the subject of my post. Somebody explain how this showed a lack of common sense/judgment on my part under the circumstances.

Dades

emmeygirl, who do you suggest closes all these threads? Because, as mentioned, many threads do remain relevant so trawling through them to guess what won't be would be a serious increase in workload compared to closing the odd thread that pops up.

emmeygirl

If you're going to close them anyway once someone posts in them then there's no increase in workload is there?

You're just doing the job sooner rather than later, and in doing so keeping the forum uncluttered.

emmeygirl

emmeygirl wrote: »

If you're going to close them anyway once someone posts in them then there's no increase in workload is there?

You're just doing the job sooner rather than later, and in doing so keeping the forum uncluttered.

That logic can only be applied if every single old thread is bumped, and they rarely are.

Meangadh

But how do you suggest the admins and mods find all these old threads? Where would you even begin? That would be a massive workload for people who in the majority are volunteers. It's just assumed if people stop posting in a thread that it'll die out naturally itself. And if someone drags up an old thread, they're just told to start a new one. I do see where you're coming from but I just think it's a lot of work.

Dades

But the vast majority of threads just fade away and become reading material for people searching through old stuff. It's only occasional threads that get 'resurrected' and need closing - so they don't all get closed eventually. It's really not a drain on mod time.

Sad Professor

Sad Professor wrote: »

I've noticed a lot more zombie threads since the new search engine. Maybe the site needs a better search results algorithm? I assume a lot of the newbies who make the mistake of bumping 9 year old threads are finding them via search. Type just about anything and see how old some of the results are.

Yeah, the problem with search is that it defaults to "most relevant" with zero sorting by time. Top result can be 9 years ago. And if you sort by time, you can get total nonsense as the top results.
Sorting by most relevant AND by time, as default, would be the best

emmeygirl

But then, if there's no bar to posting in threads, then don't be surprised if folk do actually post in them.

If it's relevant, and doesn't break site rules is it a problem? Really and truly?

A hypothetical question; what factor/s change a thread from being postable in from one instance, to not in the next? Surely whenever it's closed in it's lifetime, it is a matter of discretion?

As a site member, in the face of so many older threads, I essentially have three choices;

i) don't post at all (if everyone chose this option it would make a nonsence of the rational of a forum site, and pretty soon it'd be a dead site)

ii) start a new thread on the same subject (this takes up room on the server, and in any case in some sections we are expressly asked not to do so)

iii) Join in with a relevant post to an old thread (I'm not talking about adding spurious posts willy-nilly just to bump an old thread here by-the-way.)

Do you agree the last option is the lesser of 3 evils?

I never suggested closing every old thread, just to clarify. Just those that, using discretion, would glaringly be irrelevant, no matter what was added to it.

Duggys Housemate

I agree on the search. Most relevant in the last year sorted by date would be better.

Mr E

Let's take a step back here.

emmeygirl - how did you find that thread in the first place? What was your search criteria? "Barry Scott" or something else?

Skid X

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah, the problem with search is that it defaults to "most relevant" with zero sorting by time. Top result can be 9 years ago. And if you sort by time, you can get total nonsense as the top results.
Sorting by most relevant AND by time, as default, would be the best

This is very true. You can't blame people (especially new members) for posting in threads when the search function has effectively told them 'this is the most relevant thread for your query'

Boards should

1) Decide on some kind of policy of 'how old is too old' for a thread to be resurrected (either by forum or site wide). At the moment it seems to be 'you should know yourself' which is no help to anyone.

2) Change the search function so that it defaults to 'most recent' (or excludes search returns older than a specified time)

3) Put some kind of message on the search results to say something like "Threads which have had no posts since (whenever) are considered dead and will be probably be locked by the Moderators if you revive them. If there is no active thread older than this you should consider starting a new thread."

P. Breathnach

Skid X wrote: »

...
3) Put some kind of message on the search results to say something like "Threads which have had no posts since (whenever) are considered dead and will be probably be locked by the Moderators if you revive them. If there is no active thread older than this you should consider starting a new thread."

This presumes that posting in an old thread is a bad thing. That presumption is under challenge in this discussion.

I am of the view that reviving old threads is not necessarily bad. It seems to me (but I can't remember examples) that some mods have a knee-jerk reaction that leads them to lock old threads when a new post is made in them.

Dades

I agree the search default brings up a lot of old results. A change to that could solve a lot of this.

Mr. G

I remember there was an issue with extra load on the database. I think this has been fixed though.

Most of the new posts in zombie threads are spammers in the forum I moderate.

K-9

P. Breathnach wrote: »

This presumes that posting in an old thread is a bad thing. That presumption is under challenge in this discussion.

Depends on the forum and the topic. Something could be a year old and fine in AH, another topic, nope. There's a few things to think about, same with Politics. Topicality, the thread may now be irrelevant, discussed many times since. Events have moved on.
It maybe better to start a new thread for many reasons.

Tbh, it is usually far better to start a new thread with a new OP, view, opinion, news article etc. than bump up something from 10 years ago. I'd try and point posters to a recent thread or start a new thread on the topic.

Boards.ie: Rónán

Some quick input on search; the relevancy / boosting algorithms used on search were always interesting, and with 37,266,063 posts currently indexed (spanning over 15 years) I don't think we'll ever get it perfect.

My main issues with some of the above comments revolve around limiting search's phrase matching relevancy in order to boost posts that were made relatively recently, when that functionality can be provided by using the available "Date" filters.

The power to search boards for information relating to an event that happened up to 15 years ago is amazing (I randomly tried "Nice Treaty" just there). I'd be against "diluting" that potential to combat some of the issues mentioned previously.

Is it a case that users are unaware that the current filters exist? Are they too limited (day / month / year)? Is it a user mentality issue as opposed to a limitation of search, that perhaps needs to be addressed in the UI as opposed to in core search behavior?

Search is on the list for a revamp (although it will be some time until we get around to it) so any further feedback is very welcome.

Sad Professor

The date filters are pretty limited. More would be nice. 6 months, a year, 2 years, all time, etc. Maybe make 2 years the default so as to discourage bumping of very old threads.

I also found the sort filter (Best Match, etc) easier to use when they were separate links rather than in a menu.

Skid X

Boards.ie: Rónán wrote: »

Is it a case that users are unaware that the current filters exist? Are they too limited (day / month / year)? Is it a user mentality issue as opposed to a limitation of search, that perhaps needs to be addressed in the UI as opposed to in core search behavior?

When the search throws up something reasonably close to what the user searched for, I doubt if most users look to further refine the search. Particularly when they are using search to identify if a thread exists about a topic which they wish to post about.

As has been suggested above By changing the default return to 'Newest First' rather than 'Best Match' you would make the search function more conducive to the 'Old threads bad' philosophy which is ingrained in Moderators psyche.

It would not dilute the search function in any way, and it would result in significantly less locked threads.

Liam McPoyle

On another, albeit much smaller, forum I use,when you try and post in an old thread,(think it defaults to 6 months but will check when I get to my laptop) a little script appears that says "thread has not been active for x days, do you wish to continue"

Perhaps something like that may be an option to add though I don't know how easy/difficult that would be to implement.

Duggys Housemate

Boards.ie: Rónán wrote: »

Some quick input on search; the relevancy / boosting algorithms used on search were always interesting, and with 37,266,063 posts currently indexed (spanning over 15 years) I don't think we'll ever get it perfect.

My main issues with some of the above comments revolve around limiting search's phrase matching relevancy in order to boost posts that were made relatively recently, when that functionality can be provided by using the available "Date" filters.

The power to search boards for information relating to an event that happened up to 15 years ago is amazing (I randomly tried "Nice Treaty" just there). I'd be against "diluting" that potential to combat some of the issues mentioned previously.

Is it a case that users are unaware that the current filters exist? Are they too limited (day / month / year)? Is it a user mentality issue as opposed to a limitation of search, that perhaps needs to be addressed in the UI as opposed to in core search behavior?

Search is on the list for a revamp (although it will be some time until we get around to it) so any further feedback is very welcome.

You're thinking like an engineer, not a user. On the mobile site I searched for Dr. Who which got me a result, by default, which was 7 years old. That's impressive and fast in terms of the engineering but what I wanted was the most recent. Best match seems to always go back years as it happens.

Sure users can then change the setting to Most Recent but that's forcing the user to compensate for a UI problem. And to a certain extent a backend problem - best match seems to search too far back.

Boards.ie: Rónán

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

On the mobile site I searched for Dr. Who which got me a result, by default, which was 7 years old. That's impressive and fast in terms of the engineering but what I wanted was the most recent. Best match seems to always go back years as it happens.

That's the crux of the problem, every user will have a different opinion of what a relevant time-frame is depending on whatever their search requirements are at that particular time.

You're suggesting we limit the core functionality by setting default restrictions based on a pre-defined, accepted, "relevant" time-frame. I don't think that's the solution.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Sure users can then change the setting to Most Recent but that's forcing the user to compensate for a UI problem. And to a certain extent a backend problem - best match seems to search too far back.

Would it not be better to leave the core functionality as is but improve the means with which a user can set the parameters of their search. It means a much more powerful, accessible tool for all users.

Duggys Housemate

Boards.ie: Rónán wrote: »

That's the crux of the problem, every user will have a different opinion of what a relevant time-frame is depending on whatever their search requirements are at that particular time.

You're suggesting we limit the core functionality by setting default restrictions based on a pre-defined, accepted, "relevant" time-frame. I don't think that's the solution.



Would it not be better to leave the core functionality as is but improve the means with which a user can set the parameters of their search. It means a much more powerful, accessible tool for all users.

That's an odd answer.

1)Most users see the search as broken and hence the thread - and the reason why people are resurrecting old threads.
2) a 7 year old result for "Dr Who" is broken. That's not really subjective.
3) changing the parameters is not relevant to what is default. If sort by date were the default you wouldn't have to change your algorithm, and you can allow refinements regardless of what is default. And on the mobile site thee are 2 options anyway. And that's it.

I would expect a search online or in an app - like a mail app - to be sorted by relevance ordered by date descending. If relevance is by default.

That's probably industry standard.

nesf

Boards.ie: Rónán wrote: »

That's the crux of the problem, every user will have a different opinion of what a relevant time-frame is depending on whatever their search requirements are at that particular time.

You're suggesting we limit the core functionality by setting default restrictions based on a pre-defined, accepted, "relevant" time-frame. I don't think that's the solution.



Would it not be better to leave the core functionality as is but improve the means with which a user can set the parameters of their search. It means a much more powerful, accessible tool for all users.

When I search for things it genuinely is nearly always date dependent in some way. I find having search results ordered with no thought to time very strange for a webforum. I just searched for Enda Kenny, the first 8 results were all over 2 years old, one was 7 years old. If I'm searching for Enda Kenny on Boards nearly all the time I'm interested in recent posts not old posts, if I'm looking for older posts it'll be something more specific like "Enda Kenny, Bruton heave, leadership challenge" or whatever.

Boards.ie: Rónán

We do take the date of a post into account when sorting. If I search for a phrase "Enda Kenny" and it generates an identical score on two different posts, the more recent post will score higher than the older post and will be presented higher up in the overall results. We "boost" a post based on its creation time, the more recent the post the higher the boost.

The tricky part is finding the balance between the search phrase relevancy and the creation time boost. Boost too much and you get more recent posts showing up high in results with less relevance to the search phrase "Enda Kenny", boost too little and you get older results (but you're always guaranteed high relevancy in your results).

Reading some of the posts above and looking at the current filters available it probably makes sense to bump up the boost on post creation date. I'll hopefully be able to take some time tomorrow to tweak the algorithm and see if I can make some improvements.

nesf

Boards.ie: Rónán wrote: »

We do take the date of a post into account when sorting. If I search for a phrase "Enda Kenny" and it generates an identical score on two different posts, the more recent post will score higher than the older post and will be presented higher up in the overall results. We "boost" a post based on its creation time, the more recent the post the higher the boost.

The tricky part is finding the balance between the search phrase relevancy and the creation time boost. Boost too much and you get more recent posts showing up high in results with less relevance to the search phrase "Enda Kenny", boost too little and you get older results (but you're always guaranteed high relevancy in your results).

Reading some of the posts above and looking at the current filters available it probably makes sense to bump up the boost on post creation date. I'll hopefully be able to take some time tomorrow to tweak the algorithm and see if I can make some improvements.

I think you're biggest problem is the site is divided between usually extremely time sensitive forums like Politics and forums which are not usually based around current events like the Languages sub-category.

Cabaal

emmeygirl wrote: »

ii) start a new thread on the same subject (this takes up room on the server, and in any case in some sections we are expressly asked not to do so)

You know that the data a new thread takes up on a server is next to meaningless in the scale of things so this is hardly a negative point for starting a new thread.

Dades

I have to agree with those suggesting not enough weight is given to how recent a thread/post is within the "Best Match" search.

Fair enough if I'm looking to find out how to get a stain out of my curtains, then date is irrelevant... but any search I've done recently I've switched to the "Newest First" option as the default offers a lot of old results I know will have less relevance for whatever reason.

Boards.ie: Rónán

I've significantly bumped the boost on post date earlier this morning. Good examples of the potential swings can be found searching for:

"manchester united" - with the resignation of Alex Ferguson this morning the "Next Manchester United Manager?" thread jumps to the top over any of the match / mega threads.

"dr. who" - only 4 of the 15 results are related to Dr. Who, the fact that the majority of the Dr. Who related content on boards is years old means that the relevancy of this search suffers greatly.

I'll leave the current algorithm run for a few days and see how people get on with it. Any further feedback please let us know.

Raphael

Well a simpler fix there would be to tweak the search bar so that when you type in dr. who is suggests the doctor who forum. Dunno if Alias' are possible in that though.

Dades

An even simpler fix would be to add inverted commas and search for "dr who".

A search for that now does still bring up a lot of old threads, but to be fair, the "Most Recent" option brings up a lot of irrelevant mentions of 'dr who' and not much else.

I find choosing to search thread titles only a good way of sorting out a lot of crap with something that returns a lot of results.

TherapyBoy

Boards.ie: Rónán wrote: »

Reading some of the posts above and looking at the current filters available it probably makes sense to bump up the boost on post creation date. I'll hopefully be able to take some time tomorrow to tweak the algorithm and see if I can make some improvements.

Why not just have the default changed to 'sort by date' rather than relevance? It seems like the simplest solution. If someone wants to search by relevance instead of date they can select it from the drop-down menu like we do for 'sort by date' at the moment.

Boards.ie: Rónán

TherapyBoy wrote: »

Why not just have the default changed to 'sort by date' rather than relevance? It seems like the simplest solution. If someone wants to search by relevance instead of date they can select it from the drop-down menu like we do for 'sort by date' at the moment.

Anything that scores against the search phrase no matter how loose will display in order of date created, all ordering by relevancy goes out the window. Which is more of a filtered "latest posts" as opposed to search.

El Guapo!

Would it be practical to implement a system where, when a user enters a search term and clicks "search", a pop-up box appears and asks something along the lines of......

"How would you like to sort the results?"
And then the user can tick an option like....

"Sort by most recent"

"Sort by most relevant"

"Optimum Atari Jaguar Search" (a mixture of the first two options.)

TherapyBoy

Boards.ie: Rónán wrote: »

Anything that scores against the search phrase no matter how loose will display in order of date created, all ordering by relevancy goes out the window. Which is more of a filtered "latest posts" as opposed to search.

Right, but its still 'latest posts' regarding whatever the subject is. If the subject term entered brings up 'loose' results it might force users into putting more thought into what term they enter in the search engine. To search smarter!

It'd be just a guess (because it has happened to me once or twice) but if a user searches for something they'll start at the top of the list of results & work down. That the results aren't ordered chronologically is not expected. I think the default should be searching chronologically if for no other reason than to cut down on the amount of people posting in very old threads because IMO they haven't realised that the first result on their search list is 7 years old.

I've never had a problem with a search on Boards.ie bringing up irrelevant results. I have read through pages of posts on a thread before realising that half the posters have closed their accounts & I'm reading something from 2007.

I did an unrelated search for something yesterday and noticed the "most relevant" was a bit more time filtered
I'll still switch to "newest first" most of the time and I still think that should be a default but good improvement