Suggestion regarding posting in old threads

[Reverend Jim]

This has surely been mentioned before. I've noticed an increase in the number of noobs who are resurrecting old threads. Based on what I did shortly after joining (before getting lightly slapped on the wrist), it's likely the posters just didn't notice the thread date. Apparently the purple banner isn't sufficient. How about a pop-up when the Reply textbox gets focus or when a character is typed with the same warning and the option to continue if something really earth shatteringly worthwhile is to be added to the conversation? I know we all hate pop-ups.

As an alternate suggestion, you know when you receive a PM, the reply box already has some greyed out text from the original message? How about preloading the reply box on old threads with something like

WE APPRECIATE YOUR DESIRE TO CONTRIBUTE BUT THIS POST IS MORE THAN 3 MONTHS OLD. PLEASE DO NOT REPLY UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING REALLY VALUABLE TO ADD. POSTING IN OLD THREADS WITHOUT GOOD REASON MAY RESULT IN INFRACTIONS.

This text could be automatically deleted when the box gets focus or when the first keystroke is detected.

[Ancient Dragon]

Dani has said several times before in this forum that there is nothing wrong with resurrecting old threads as long as the new posts are relevant to the topic.

Here is one of the threads. I seem to recall others.

[deceptikon]

as long as the new posts are relevant to the topic.

The susggestion takes that into account. We still have issues with people resurrecting threads with new or unrelated questions, or with posts that have no value (eg. "Thanks for sharing!" posts). I wouldn't be surprised if a more naggy approach to notifying people that the thread is old helped to alleviate at least some of the problem.

[Reverend Jim]

Dani has said several times before in this forum that there is nothing wrong with resurrecting old threads as long as the new posts are relevant to the topic.

That's why I included the phrase UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING REALLY VALUABLE TO ADD. When you see three year old threads like this one that are clearly marked as solved then they really do not need further posts.

Apparently people are ignoring the banner. I thought that by putting text in the actual text entry area it would force people to read it. Even a pop-up on old solved threads would be useful. I, personally, have added to recently solved posts with tidbits that might be worth considering even if the actual question has been addressed so I can see that there are cases where additional posts are a good idea. But posting in a three year old solved thread is probably not.

[<M/>]

I have noticed quite a few times... Is there a way for mods and admins to close threads that are dead for 3 months?

[happygeek]

Yes there is a way, but we don't use it as old 'dead' threads may still have relevant life breathed into them at a future date.

[<M/>]

Yes there is a way, but we don't use it as old 'dead' threads may still have relevant life breathed into them at a future date.

I am aware of calling them "dead" is not the best thing, but if you noticed that on threads that haven't been commented on for 3 months would say "dead"...

[Reverend Jim]

"You see, there's different kinds of dead: there's sort of dead, mostly dead, and all dead. This fella here, he's only sort of dead" - Miracle Max (The Princess Bride).

[Ancient Dragon]

Jesus isn't the only one who can raise things from the dead :)

[<M/>]

By any chance is Dani developing a way to permenantly close "dead" threads, to prevent spam?

@Ancient Dragon, Scientific Nerds can also raise the dead!

[deceptikon]

By any chance is Dani developing a way to permenantly close "dead" threads, to prevent spam?

No, and there are no plans in the future for such a feature. Dani encourages relevant thread resurrection, and I would fight tooth and nail to stop automatic locking because I've seen it done in practice and the result is exceptionally unpleasant. At the very least there would need to be another solution.

[<M/>]

Dani encourages relevant thread resurrection

Wouldn't that be a problem? Think about it, a question being solved 8 years ago (the original poster has not returned for 8 years) is suddenly spammed today by a newbie poster and brings it back even though it is already solved... isn't that a problem? Unless Dani, you (deceptikon), and whomever does the programming sets up a way for users to permenantly close their own threads so they don't have to take in anymore solutions or have a "timer" that closes threads permantly after a few months of being "dead". Wouldn't those be helpful features to prevent spam?

[mike_2000_17]

By any chance is Dani developing a way to permenantly close "dead" threads, to prevent spam?

No, or at least, it would be extremely surprising. She has made it abondantly clear (mostly in moderator-only discussions) that people contributing to old threads is not only in agreement with the rules but also welcomed, even if it's annoying for members to see old thread popping up in the listings. And as the queen, her wishes are our commands.

I do agree that it would be nice to have some feature that's more "in your face" about the thread being dead would be a good thing. But then again, the current purple, large-font message and the big fat link to start a new discussion is pretty "in your face" already.

It could be a two-step thing: remove the editor box from threads that are too old and replace it with a message like the current one, with the addition of a link to make the reply-editor appear if the person really feels he has something valuable to add to it. That additional, simple step just makes it impossible for someone to just glare over the thread and the "dead thread" message without noticing and replying to it as if it was a current and active thread.

[mike_2000_17]

sets up a way for users to permenantly close their own threads so they don't have to take in anymore solutions or have a "timer" that closes threads permantly after a few months of being "dead". Wouldn't those be helpful features to prevent spam?

If I'm not mistaken, there is a time out on the email notifications. As in, the OP or other members who contributed to an old thread don't get notified by email that someone has resurrected their thread. If not, that could be a good idea (but then again, I'm sure Dani would say that it's good that resurrected threads poke old members, possibly bringing them back to Daniweb, if they haven't been around for a while).

[deceptikon]

Think about it, a question being solved 8 years ago (the original poster has not returned for 8 years) is suddenly spammed today by a newbie poster and brings it back even though it is already solved... isn't that a problem?

Spam is a different thing than a newbie posting in a thread that's solved. And even if the original question is resolved, there's no reason why the discussion couldn't be continued if someone else has relevant questions or comments.

Unless Dani, you (deceptikon), and whomever does the programming sets up a way for users to permenantly close their own threads so they don't have to take in anymore solutions

The OP isn't the only one who benefits from a thread.

or have a "timer" that closes threads permantly after a few months of being "dead".

This is what I meant by automatically locking threads.

Wouldn't those be helpful features to prevent spam?

True spam should be reported so that it can be removed by a moderator. Legitimate posts are allowed, and if they're not relevant to the thread should also be reported.

[Dani]

If I'm not mistaken, there is a time out on the email notifications. As in, the OP or other members who contributed to an old thread don't get notified by email that someone has resurrected their thread. If not, that could be a good idea (but then again, I'm sure Dani would say that it's good that resurrected threads poke old members, possibly bringing them back to Daniweb, if they haven't been around for a while).

This feature doesn't exist. I think you're confusing it with the feature we do have that posters are not notified after X months if a moderator goes back and edits their post, as long as an infraction isn't involved.

You would be right about my opinion :)

[Reverend Jim]

remove the editor box from threads that are too old and replace it with a message like the current one...

That sounds reasonable to me.