Sage is needed.

I second the motion.

I'm confused by what you mean.

I'm confused by what you mean.

Well **I guess** he is requesting for some "sage" feature wherein if a thread is marked as a "Sage", any one posting in that thread (no matter how old it is) would not cause it to be bumped to top of the thread list.

This sounds like a good idea to counter people posting in old threads and disrupting current discussions.

Exactly...... but you could still have chronological view. Basically it would be the viewer's choice if they see "bumped" threads or not...

The problem I see is when someone (most likely a new member) posts to an old thread, asking for help, no one will see it (always imagine the worst case scenario, in this case it is every regular member has "Sage" mode turned on) and they will never receive an answer.

Well, the moderators who are supposed to strip those posts out would need to keep saging off..... posting new questions in old threads isn't supposed to happen (or receive any kind of answer other than "how 'bout you post a new thread") anyway.

As comatose mentions, new members posting a question on an old thread isn't expected to get an answer anyways, he is supposed to be smart enough to check the dates and start a new thread. Also from the conversation on this thread (which I witnessed two days back too), old threads do host an announcement saying that "This thread is more than three months old - Perhaps start a new one."

old threads do host an announcement saying that "This thread is more than three months old - Perhaps start a new one."

And how often is that followed. Here is an example of a member who just joined, and wants to be helpful. They "answered" a question from a thread more than three years old. However they realized the thread had already been answered, and edited their response. Now it is going to be on the shoulders of 14 people to tell all the members like mezzin, to check the dates. Maybe the workload on moderators will not increase as much as I think it will. If Dani doesn't mind adding it, and moderators workload does not greatly increase, I would support a Sage feature.

>And how often is that followed.
Yes I know it isn't followed often, more than often probably, but I have mentioned than what should happen to such post, in my post.

new members posting a question on an old thread isn't expected to get an answer anyways, he is supposed to be smart enough to check the dates and start a new thread.

and if he is posting an answer, well then we do have a possibility of losing it, but then think this way, there might be two kind of parties interested in knowing the answer, first, the OP, who since he's subscribed to the thread, by default, would receive a notification of the post (unless he has turned off the notifications) and can get to know of the answer posted and second, a new member, who might be searching for an answer to a similar query during that precise time when the thread got bumped (at made it to the top) and remained there, but the chances of this happening are real slim as you know. In other cases, assuming that the thread is marked a sage and posts to it don't bump it anymore, the new member would have to search for the thread as he would have to do it if there had been no recent posts to it.

Actually it's more for stuff like this, when you want add the final note, but not have the thread live on, from the bump raising attention.

Well, the moderators who are supposed to strip those posts out would need to keep saging off.....

Moderators are not supposed to strip posts out

posting new questions in old threads isn't supposed to happen (or receive any kind of answer other than "how 'bout you post a new thread") anyway.

But it does happen. Cats aren't supposed to climb on the dining table either. But they do.

As comatose mentions, new members posting a question on an old thread isn't expected to get an answer anyways,

Oh? They posted a question. They want an answer. How are they supposed to know they should not expect an answer to their question?

he is supposed to be smart enough to check the dates and start a new thread.

Let's stop supposing, shall we? Deal with reality, please...

Also from the conversation on this thread (which I witnessed two days back too), old threads do host an announcement saying that "This thread is more than three months old - Perhaps start a new one."

And the background of the coding forums say Use Code Tags. 80% of new posters don't. Why would one think an 'announcement' would help this situation?

Moderators are not supposed to strip posts out

Sir, I beg to differ. When a question is posted to a thread that is old or solved or heck, when they are not the OP.... a moderator is supposed to "split" that into a new thread. I mean, I did when I was a moderator.

The people who do all the thread neocromancy are the same ones who wouldn't use a sage feature even if it was available, so what's the point?

Oh? They posted a question. They want an answer. How are they supposed to know they should not expect an answer to their question?

Because they are posting a question pretending it to be an "answer" to the initial question, in the first place. Secondly as I have mentioned they are already informed through the notice that the threads' old enough and they should "perhaps" start a new thread. If they still persist with their instinct that they might get an answer let their instincts be proven wrong.

Let's stop supposing, shall we? Deal with reality, please...

I am saying here that if they are not smart enough even to read the dates and read some published announcements, their questions won't get answered thats all.

And the background of the coding forums say Use Code Tags. 80% of new posters don't. Why would one think an 'announcement' would help this situation?

Yes, and there's also an announcement about showing effort on your homework, no one follows it either, but the forum regulars make them follow it with their in-your-face and straight forward replies that they offer for anyone not showing effort. In the same way by not answering their questions (we would not be knowing they have posted anyways since the thread wouldn't be bumped) we would be giving them the right signal that the announcement on the top is not just to take up unwanted space but actually to be followed. now can't we do that ?