Closing Old Threads

GTE

Hello all,

Every so often I notice that old threads get posted in by newbies or even seasoned posters and the thread then gets shut with the user being blamed (directly and indirectly by users and mods) for dredging up an old thread. I am speaking specifically about the Motors and Commuting boards here as they are the ones I use the most so perhaps the discussion should relate to those rather than boards wide as I can only imagine what rubbish gets brought up from After Hours.

Although a very small number of instances are a case of a user making a joke or trying to be funny, most occasions are where the poster has something positive to contribute to the topic. If that sparks, dare I say it, some "foruming" and fizzles out again then why does that matter? I have even seen instances where a new full blown discussion is created and still gets shutdown by the Mods.

So, there are two ways to look at it:

1) Why is/are boards/mods so bad at deleting threads past a certain age?
or
2) Why would a thread need to be shut just because of age?

Now, of course topics may be out of date and/or contributions may not be helpful but in the case of the latter, why should the thread be closed just because of that? It strikes me that very few threads would make it past a day or two old if that was a Boards.ie policy. The only reason I could imagine at the moment for an old thread closure is that another thread directly relating to the old thread is in close proximity. In that case the old thread could be closed and linked into the newer one for reference reasons.

I think it would be a good idea for mods to state exactly why they are closing a thread due to age as "2009 called, etc., etc.," is a quality of reason I couldn't go to school with and expect to be respected.

If contributions are slight tangents to the original topic, then at least members who use the search function can have more information in one thread.

For me, it is such a small deal when an old thread is revived that I can not believe it is even has action taken against it. Just leave it be I say.

Thanks for reading,
bbk

Steve

bbk wrote: »

1) Why is/are boards/mods so bad at deleting threads past a certain age?

Boards has a policy of not deleting threads unless we really have to. The idea is to preserve history and the information therein. An old thread is still there to be read by whoever wishes to read it.

2) Why would a thread need to be shut just because of age?

Threads generally aren't closed 'just because of age'. They are closed if they are no longer relevant and / or the posters in it aren't around anymore to continue the conversation.

Personally, I will never close an old thread just because it's old.

Eeden

Steve wrote: »

Boards has a policy of not deleting threads unless we really have to. The idea is to preserve history and the information therein. An old thread is still there to be read by whoever wishes to read it.

Threads generally aren't closed 'just because of age'. They are closed if they are no longer relevant and / or the posters in it aren't around anymore to continue the conversation.

Personally, I will never close an old thread just because it's old.

What about just locking a thread when it's out of date? It's still there to be read, and then if someone wants to resurrect the topic, they have to start a new thread (they could possibly have a link to the old one in the new one?).

Steve

The subject of auto-closing old threads has come up before - and there is a vB plugin that can do it automagically - but boards is ever trying to weed out the vB code because it can't handle a site as big as this. It's still on the wish list though.

We're getting over 15000 new posts per day - don't know how many new threads that means but, say it's 2000 per day, it's an impossible ask for a volunteer mod team to find and close the ones over a certain age every day so not gonna happen any time soon unless they can automate it.

weisses

Steve wrote: »

The subject of auto-closing old threads has come up before - and there is a vB plugin that can do it automagically - but boards is ever trying to weed out the vB code because it can't handle a site as big as this. It's still on the wish list though.

We're getting over 15000 new posts per day - don't know how many new threads that means but, say it's 2000 per day, it's an impossible ask for a volunteer mod team to find and close the ones over a certain age every day so not gonna happen any time soon unless they can automate it.

I don't think its 2000 new threads daily, even so divide it across all the mods it will only be a few threads a day per mod

How difficult can it be to go back in a forum ( 6 months) and close all the threads that are older, i agree some forums like AH has loads of threads but also more mods.

Don't forget a mod has to post on a zombie thread as well and close it (also extra work)

You also have plenty users reacting just because its a zombie thread (adding nothing to the actual discussion) which lead to possible more moderating.

ArmaniJeanss

weisses wrote: »

I don't think its 2000 new threads daily, even so divide it across all the mods it will only be a few threads a day per mod

How difficult can it be to go back in a forum ( 6 months) and close all the threads that are older, i agree some forums like AH has loads of threads but also more mods.

Don't forget a mod has to post on a zombie thread as well and close it (also extra work)

You also have plenty users reacting just because its a zombie thread (adding nothing to the actual discussion) which lead to possible more moderating.

A 6 month rule for closing would be fairly terrible, as there are many threads where it makes perfect sense for them to be bumped with an update 6 or 12 months later. Conversely there are other threads where a bump is nonsense.
If a user makes a mistake and bumps one that shouldn't be bumped then the mod can shut it and its no big deal really.

Insect Overlord

Case by case works fine, most of the time. Trolls and spammers usually have their posts deleted anyway. Hardly worth changing the settings for at this stage.

GTE

Steve wrote: »

Boards has a policy of not deleting threads unless we really have to. The idea is to preserve history and the information therein. An old thread is still there to be read by whoever wishes to read it.

Threads generally aren't closed 'just because of age'. They are closed if they are no longer relevant and / or the posters in it aren't around anymore to continue the conversation.

Personally, I will never close an old thread just because it's old.

Thanks for that, so that answers towards the question of perception I was asking in my original post. That policy in itself is fine, but it does not answer the question as to why Mods see it fit to close old threads when contributions have been positive.

Secondly, this is forum dependent but over the months and years I have been here, the threads that got closed were about general topics which although was specific to the OP could very well be applicable to all of us in a search for a new used car. That is just an example to throw out there.

Threads like these get closed when someone possibly asks a question related to the topic of car X or whether additional information about the thread topic can be contributed which would never be a thread on its own. "In case anyone in situation w with car y then check out x and z". That never happens and can not be covered under the start a new thread idea I have read so far.

It is impossible to outline every situation where a contribution in an old thread is fine but maybe a rule of thumb is that if there is not a recent thread of similar topic around, then let it revive but if there is one close, close it and post that link in the newer thread. Similar to the policy of closing threads about a topic which has already had a thread or two created in the days previous, usually happens on big news things.

Eeden wrote: »

What about just locking a thread when it's out of date? It's still there to be read, and then if someone wants to resurrect the topic, they have to start a new thread (they could possibly have a link to the old one in the new one?).

I wouldn't agree with this myself. My idea is not to do this nor was it ever to seem that way. My comments on mods being bad at locking etc. is about the perception that can result.

Steve wrote: »

We're getting over 15000 new posts per day - don't know how many new threads that means but, say it's 2000 per day, it's an impossible ask for a volunteer mod team to find and close the ones over a certain age every day so not gonna happen any time soon unless they can automate it.

Understood but never asked for, perhaps I did not make that clear originally.

weisses wrote: »

Don't forget a mod has to post on a zombie thread as well and close it (also extra work)

You also have plenty users reacting just because its a zombie thread (adding nothing to the actual discussion) which lead to possible more moderating.

This is the worst part about it. A pointless action of posting and closing a thread because it was revived which is just a waste of time. When this happens often enough regular users than start making comments before the mod does step in. I would feel sorry for the new posters who have done nothing other than post a positive contribution to a topic and then get blasted by regular users before a Mod then closes the thread.

We would be far better off ensuring that there is a culture of being able to post what you like from where you like as long as it contributes in a positive way. In the Motors and Commuting forums, it is much easier to do than in the After Hours for example so that is why I am talking about those forums only, so the post by Steve is just not really applicable as it is too much of a blanket across Boards.

Dav

I kinda agree with you, I don't see the need or reasoning behind closing old threads just because they've been resurrected when all you have to do is put a post saying "this is an old thread, you may not get a response" and move on.

P. Breathnach

Dav wrote: »

I kinda agree with you, I don't see the need or reasoning behind closing old threads just because they've been resurrected when all you have to do is put a post saying "this is an old thread, you may not get a response" and move on.

That makes sense. I have a memory of one case where a mod posted a message somewhat like that - but then locked the thread.

As Insect Overlord suggests, case by case works fine most of the time. But I think some mods have a knee-jerk reaction to reviving old threads. A decision to lock should be linked to how relevant or useful it is to resume the discussion.

Pawwed Rig

Generally I would leave a thread run if I thought the latest post was a positive contribution, added to the discussion and potentially creating more discussion. Where an old thread is ressurected for a one line quip or a post to a link then I would be inclined to close it. It is a judgement call really and different mods would have different opinions about it.
I would suggest PMing the mod that closed it for clarification. They might suggest opening a new thread or have genuine reasons for closing the old one.

Penn

I think (most) old threads should be closed when resurrected because some of the posters in the original thread may have left, may have changed their views, may not want their posts being brought to the forefront again etc. My opinions on a lot of things have changed in the 5 years I've been here (usually because of discussions here). Some of my old posts being dredged up again... yeesh. I know everyone's old posts are still searchable, but there's a level of intent in that which doesn't apply to resurrecting an old thread.

Always better to start a new thread and have a fresh discussion.

Dav

My thoughts on the matter are pretty much the exact opposite of what you just said

Changing your mind on something based on further discussion and analysis is the sign of being a smart and sensible human being. Why on earth should you be afraid of saying "yea, I've changed my opinion because reasons" to anyone?

Penn

Dav wrote: »

My thoughts on the matter are pretty much the exact opposite of what you just said

Changing your mind on something based on further discussion and analysis is the sign of being a smart and sensible human being. Why on earth should you be afraid of saying "yea, I've changed my opinion because reasons" to anyone?

Because if a person quotes something you posted years ago and responds to it, because it's an old thread, you might not know or be reading the thread (whereas you would have done when you were originally engaged in the discussion). Which means former opinions of yours are being discussed (thereby linking you to those opinions in the mind of those who are reading the resurrected thread) and you might have no idea. And even if you do find out, you then have to explain how you no longer hold those opinions. I don't think most people would be afraid or embarrassed to have to do so, but it's an unnecessary hassle they may not want.

A new thread offers a clean break for everyone. If there's a good enough reason to resurrect an old thread, it's surely sufficient reason to start a new one.

5starpool

My main objection to old threads being resurrected is that it usually takes about 20 posts or more to realise that I'm reading an old thread. I have seen old threads bumped with inane comments and those I think should probably be put of of their misery and closed, or if nothing else has been posted since, delete the post and let it go back to where it was sleeping before. I've seen people posting replies to bumped threads not realising they were old and arguing as if the point had been freshly made. In those cases on not very important threads it is ok to close imo, but certainly not as part of an "it's old so close it" rule.

Discretionary basis is the right approach imo.

K-9

Dav wrote: »

My thoughts on the matter are pretty much the exact opposite of what you just said

Changing your mind on something based on further discussion and analysis is the sign of being a smart and sensible human being. Why on earth should you be afraid of saying "yea, I've changed my opinion because reasons" to anyone?

That happened to me and tbh I just didn't feel the inclination to point out to somebody how my opinion had changed since 4 years ago. I'd firmly believed the original post, but we had pretty seismic political events since, and my opinion had changed to take account of those.

As repeatedly said it's a judgement call. Somebody quoting a poster who has closed their account or rarely is about, better to lock it. If it's a more general reply that can lead to a discussion, I'd tend to keep it open and see if it develops, as long as it is still politically relevant. Often other posters realise it is an old thread and don't bother replying, so it is probably best for them to lock it and point out they can start a new thread.

Dav

One thing I'm really taking away from this is that we should make older content stand out a bit more as old. Thankfully I do have a plan that might help with that.

The opinions on whether things should stay open or closed is, as already states, a total judgement call and I completely understand why some people think it's better to close them off and start a new one.

GTE

I am glad there such a positive debate about this issue here. I had forgotten about this thread when a similar Motors specific one came up but the this topic was overshadowed by some bigger issues, which is fair enough.

Davs comments about making older threads stand out more as being old is a very good.

The suggestion of Mods simply posting a "this thread is x years old" rather than just close it is also a very good one.

Using a case by case basis is also good to hear though my opinion remains that for an old thread to be locked, the newly posted content would have to be nonconstructive and/or the following posts spiral into something silly. Rubbish, quips, insults, off topic etc. in other words. But then, that is more or less the same criteria that normal threads have applied to be given moderation and/or to be closed which I do not have a problem with.

Another reason to close it for me is if the content is applicable to a thread that was being used recently where a Mod can close the older one and link it to the newer one along with the post made by the reviving user.

It should also be noted that if there was a change over of how mods deal with old threads, given the reactions on Motors, you can have a streak of posts slagging off the user who initially revived the thread. That shouldn't count towards a thread locking though, it just needs to be stamped out so users don't do it.

It is one of those little things that shouldn't be a problem, but somehow is!

Thanks all

Mrs OBumble

As a mod, I find that 80% of the times when someone posts in an old thread, they're spamming, trying to inflate their post-count, or raising a totally new issue that simply has some words in common with the OPs issue.

If someone posts in an old thread, if it really is relevant (eg just updating on the outcome of my dispute from 2010) then I'd let it stand.

If iit's simply further discussion about a problem that was resolved years ago, I close it. No point having it the top of the list, inviting current posters to give advice on an ancient issue.

But if it really is a new problem, I tend to move the recent post to a new thread and leave the old thread alone.

biko

In my experience the most common reason for thread resurrection is someone googles something and gets a hit in a thread from 2006.
They then post their own question in the thread. Sometimes it's on topic and sometimes not.
Most often they could just as easily have started a fresh thread.

For me, I will leave it open if it's not too old, but mainly if it updates existing information in the thread.

An OP could bring back a thread from 2010 with an update on how it turned out in the end, and I'd be ok with it.
A user bringing back a thread from 2012 only to ask about something poster #11 said is going to get thread locked.

thesandeman

What I've seen happening a lot is that somebody bumps an old thread and people (including myself) have joined in without noticing the date of the original posts.

I don't know anything about tech stuff but just wondering is there anyway of having 'DORMANT THREAD' or something similar being automatically added to the thread title if it hasn't been posted on in a year or whatever??
Obviously that could pose a problem with the charters though.
Just a thought anyway.

GTE

thesandeman wrote: »

What I've seen happening a lot is that somebody bumps an old thread and people (including myself) have joined in without noticing the date of the original posts.

I don't know anything about tech stuff but just wondering is there anyway of having 'DORMANT THREAD' or something similar being automatically added to the thread title if it hasn't been posted on in a year or whatever??
Obviously that could pose a problem with the charters though.
Just a thought anyway.

It could be an idea, but if the discussion is valid, why should it matter?

Nody

bbk wrote: »

It could be an idea, but if the discussion is valid, why should it matter?

Because very often the discussion is not valid to the thread but rather should been a new thread (i.e. what I've seen a lot is someone applying to company X, five years later someone is applying to the same company and search boards and posts "How did it go?" or "What questions did they ask?") or someone decides to answer a question from three years ago/question why a user thought XYZ. Sometimes the OP has even closed the accounts so it's impossible to get an answer that's requested

Personally I usually simply break them out into a new thread and lock the old thread to avoid a repeat action (and if any OP's thread on any of the forums I mod read this and need their thread opened then simpy PM me about it and I'll happily unlock it for further updates).

GTE

Nody wrote: »

Because very often the discussion is not valid to the thread but rather should been a new thread (i.e. what I've seen a lot is someone applying to company X, five years later someone is applying to the same company and search boards and posts "How did it go?" or "What questions did they ask?") or someone decides to answer a question from three years ago/question why a user thought XYZ. Sometimes the OP has even closed the accounts so it's impossible to get an answer that's requested

Personally I usually simply break them out into a new thread and lock the old thread to avoid a repeat action (and if any OP's thread on any of the forums I mod read this and need their thread opened then simpy PM me about it and I'll happily unlock it for further updates).

Indeed but the context of the discussion originally is that I have seen a quite a few examples over the years in particular forums where the content is valid and the resulting discussion is valid as well, which does not make sense to close. I have not yet said the problem is Boards wide as I can only speak for the ones I mentioned earlier where it can be very valid to revive an old thread to ensure that more knowledge about a problem, issue or whatever can be found in a single thread.

This is the basis of the whole discussion rather that outlining the criteria for closing revived threads as such. We all know and agree on those criteria for the most part, but what I made the thread is for the odd occasions when those criteria are not met yet there is action taken upon it.

Include that with the association that members have with old threads being closed regardless and some members getting on the bandwagon and giving out to the reviver, which is not a positive attitude that a forum wants to send out at all! Finally, the policy of very uninformative reasons for closing a thread like "thread from 2009 is a thread from 2009" or whatever that particular comment was about.