Member Avatar

Is it me or are there loads of members reanimating long-expired threads? Is there a way to automatically close threads say a certain amount of time after the last post?

Being faced with 2 year old posts cluttering up my favourite forum is seriously annoying me. If the posters had anything interesting to share it would be something, but they usually spout some inane drivel.

Sorry if this has already been covered - not recently though, I think - and I didn't want to be guilty of something that I'm denouncing!

Salem commented: Quite. +0

Is it me or are there loads of members reanimating long-expired threads?

I read "members" as those who've been here for a while. Isn't it more likely that someone just registered and responds to some 2-year-old question, though? Just a different variant of the fly-by/on-off poster.

Is there a way to automatically close threads say a certain amount of time after the last post?

I believe it's already been brought up, discussed, and you are looking at the chosen/preferred version.

Is it me or are there loads of members reanimating long-expired threads? Is there a way to automatically close threads say a certain amount of time after the last post?

Being faced with 2 year old posts cluttering up my favourite forum is seriously annoying me. If the posters had anything interesting to share it would be something, but they usually spout some inane drivel.

Sorry if this has already been covered - not recently though, I think - and I didn't want to be guilty of something that I'm denouncing!

The thread-revivers are usually either spammers or, more often, a newbie who is trying to help and isn't noticing the dates. I'm guilty of several of those myself, I think. They tend to get pounded a bit harshly in my view. First post, trying to help, and they get told that they're an idiot for reviving an old thread.

Frankly I think reviving an old thread can be useful sometimes. Maybe you have something to add that wasn't mentioned and the thread provides a good segway into it. There are fairly generic topics out there and the whole goal is not just to help the original poster.

Anyway, I think automated closure is rarely the way to go. The mods here are good. If it's completely inane or spam, they tend to close them pretty fast or someone will point out the date and the thread dies again.

The thread-revivers are usually either spammers or, more often, a newbie who is trying to help and isn't noticing the dates. I'm guilty of several of those myself, I think. They tend to get pounded a bit harshly in my view. First post, trying to help, and they get told that they're an idiot for reviving an old thread.

Maybe so, but if there are 1000 pages of threads, and you are looking at page #500, you'd think the post is not current. Especially when the 1st page has maybe 2 days of posts.

Frankly I think reviving an old thread can be useful sometimes. Maybe you have something to add that wasn't mentioned and the thread provides a good segway into it.

Yes, but that 5% that are useful if someone cares later are over shadowed by the other 95% that are:
1) "I have this problem, too"
2) "Here's some really bad code that doesn't really answer the question"
3) "Nice post"
etc.

Frankly I think reviving an old thread can be useful sometimes. Maybe you have something to add that wasn't mentioned and the thread provides a good segway into it.

Yes and i see NOTHING WRONG WITH DATES!! (They are meaningless)

Member Avatar

I read "members" as those who've been here for a while. Isn't it more likely that someone just registered and responds to some 2-year-old question, though? Just a different variant of the fly-by/on-off poster.


I believe it's already been brought up, discussed, and you are looking at the chosen/preferred version.

If this is the chosen version, I don't think it's working. WRT reviving a post and making an useful comment: I'd like to think that a link to the original thread in the first new post would be the way to go. Wishful thinking maybe.

I agree with closing old threads automatically. If someone has a related question a year later they can make a new thread. The downside (as Vernon mentioned) is losing some good points if someone has something useful to say. But that is a rarity compared to how many times spammers up old threads or people post irrelevant code in them.

IMO, you could have a system where posts on threads over 3 months old require moderator permission. It's more work in the short term but having to take the time to approve 5 threads rather than having to close 20 for the usual spam,"I have a totally unrelated problem but this thread looked good or had a lot of posts on it" etc. it would end up saving time. Sure it takes a little bit of control out of the hands of the community but if that's the chief complaint then why have moderators in the first place?

commented: word +0

I agree with closing old threads automatically.

This is just basically trying to FORGET THE PAST and in my opinion: THE PAST WAS MUCH BETTER!! (The 80s mostly and before)

But DaniWeb didn't exist in the 80's. Who would you hassle without us?
:icon_wink:

This is just basically trying to FORGET THE PAST and in my opinion: THE PAST WAS MUCH BETTER!! (The 80s mostly and before)

No, it's more like not rewriting the past to make it more "modern" :)
Most posts to old threads are of the "i wan hlp uregnt plz asap" kind by kids who never bothered to read the actual thread itself but had it pop up in some Google search and just append their homework question at the end rather than starting their own thread (and getting pounded for that ;) ).

commented: well put. +0
Member Avatar

No, it's more like not rewriting the past to make it more "modern" :)
Most posts to old threads are of the "i wan hlp uregnt plz asap" kind by kids who never bothered to read the actual thread itself but had it pop up in some Google search and just append their homework question at the end rather than starting their own thread (and getting pounded for that ;) ).

Couldn't agree more. On 'closed threads', e.g. over 3 months without reply, you could have a button like 'new thread with link to this thread' (or something more eloquent).

Sorry to mess up your post, but I deleted the posts.

Well, I think I gave an accurate enough description for people to get the point. Just add some more inane leet-speak, plus a two-year-old date and you have the post.

Suffice it to say that it backed up other people's opinions on this thread better than it backed up mine.

if there's a thread that needs bumping, it's this one.

Keep Hope Alive!

commented: So you gave negrep because I deleted "me toos +0

Nick, you know i love you, man

:P


.

Nick, you know i love you, man

*sigh*. You got me worried there for a moment :P (<--- and that's a smily sticking out a tongue, not giving a wink )

[EDITED]

nevermind. lets not go there. daniweb is a such a nice site.


.

Hi!

Just though I'd give you my two cents!

As a new user to DaniWeb I have immediately noticed that a lot of threads that are years old are being resurrected for no real reason. Obviously there are always exceptions to the rule but in my opinion in most cases I believe old threads should be closed.

I even became victim to one myself, I check the last couple of posts and the dates were current so I replied with my comment and it was only then that I noticed the thread was very old even though the topic sounded current!

I personally think that old threads should be locked and if someone has either the same problem or a similar problem then they should create a new thread with perhaps a link to the closed thread just for reference.

I've been looking for a decent forum for some time and DaniWeb fits all the criteria I was looking for - it covers Windows, MAC OS X and has a sense of humour in the fact you have the Community Centre section.

The only thing I feel lets it down is all the old threads being resurrected as in most forums I have been a member of this has been a 'no no' so I am unsure if I should post a reply in a thread that someone has resurrected or not.

commented: tru dat +0

and yet you bumped an 11-day dead thread to say that.

now see, this is why we can't have nice things. :icon_frown:

if there's a thread that needs bumping, it's this one.

Keep Hope Alive!

NOTE: a 10 day bump.

Nick, you know i love you, man

:P

[EDITED]

nevermind. lets not go there. daniweb is a such a nice site.

and yet you bumped an 11-day dead thread to say that.

now see, this is why we can't have nice things. :icon_frown:

Talking about useless bump posts... I see 10 days is OK but 11 is not.

Yes, I did it too, but I did it once to illustrate a point... :icon_wink:

jephthah, as new member of the forum I'm just trying to fit in and try and not upset all the people who have been here for a long time so apologies for replying to an 11 day old thread - at least I now know that even if I can help someone I shouldn't reply to any threads older than 10 or 11 days.

commented: i love you, man. come on over here and gimme a hug. +0

People that make a big deal about Dates really do make me angry!!

On many sites i am severly limited to what i can reply to CAUSE IM AFRIAD OF WHAT THE STAFF MIGHT SAY!!!

Im glad the staff is reasonable here and i dont have to worry.. (Well i am carefull also... I DONT REPLY TO A THREAD IF ITS LINK IN NO LONGER VALID (NO REASON TO))

jephthah, as new member of the forum I'm just trying to fit in and try and not upset all the people who have been here for a long time so apologies for replying to an 11 day old thread - at least I now know that even if I can help someone I shouldn't reply to any threads older than 10 or 11 days.

You normally will get bad rep if you bump a thread that has been dead for 6 months or longer. 10 or 11 days is ok. We've seen some people bump 5-year-old threads, most likely because they didn't pay attention to the date of the last post.

jesus christ already, i was being sarcastic.

cant you people read my facial expression?

:icon_frown: :P

We don't need to, we assume sarcasm is your MO

:p

Here is a good example of why threads should NOT be closed, and resurrection can be helpful to everyone. But this is an exception because most dead threads are not worth resurrecting.

That's a good example?

The fact that it had to be edited for code tags, and it does NOT answer the original question (as Iam3R points out) is hardly a winning case for the defence (m'lud).

Here is a good example of why threads should NOT be closed

there's nothing redeeming about that thread. at this point, the only thing that can be added are warnings and disclaimers.

if we think such an effort is a good exercise with instructive value, then there's a lot of horrible code snippets out there that still need to be decisively shot and buried.


.