0

Threads should remain open as a rule of thumb, and there should be no rule/movement against contributing to those threads at any time provided that contribution is on topic and adds something worthy to the thread in question.

Where the addition is spam/hijack etc then it gets dealt with using existing moderator processes.

2

because we sure do need all these new users posting half-assed, me too, or completely wrong "solutions" to multi-year-old threads that had already long since been resolved.

like this
and this
and this
and this
and this
and this

I could go on, because that's just a sample from the past 10 days or so in C. i havent even started on other forums.

Votes + Comments
Careful, you might trigger the non-existant link-spam detection s/w when you post too many links ;)
2

Threads should remain open as a rule of thumb, and there should be no rule/movement against contributing to those threads at any time provided that contribution is on topic and adds something worthy to the thread in question.

Where the addition is spam/hijack etc then it gets dealt with using existing moderator processes.

Define etc. Does etc include "Me too", "Good code", "Thanks" resurrections, or are they part of the "adds something worthy" form of reply?

jephthah points out, another level of questionable resurrections. In some cases, a post that supplants previously good code with crap. Are they also "worthy" simply because they tried to help?

Here is my biggest complaint. Dani states she wants 'black and white' rules. You can't have b&w rules. What mods need are workable guidelines. If a resurrection doesn't add worth to the thread, what options can we choose from? And yes, sometimes worth is subjective. How do we decide?

Edited by WaltP: n/a

2

How bad?
http://www.daniweb.com/forums/thread91939.html
2½ years of "me too" 1-posters, all bleating for a project to do.

You'd think they would get the message that the thread is pointless.

Oh well, at least it makes good target practice ▼

Votes + Comments
But Salem, they all fell asleep through their entire academic program... ;) Good word choice anyway.
0

Yep. Reported and noted as possibly a new record for bumping (I think there was one from 2003 a couple months back). It must take a lot of effort to find that post and post on it rather than starting a new one. I'll never understand the motivation....

0

The mechanics are usually easily explained: Google search -> old thread on same/similar topic -> poster asks related question

0

It must take a lot of effort to find that post

The mechanics are usually easily explained: Google search -> old thread on same/similar topic -> poster asks related question

Not really. Google actually does a rather good job of finding the newest thread on subject on DW. I've mentioned this before, but the "similar threads" functionality has the nasty habit of presenting ancient threads to the user...

Edited by Nick Evan: n/a

0

You could be right there. Replace Google search with DaniWeb search in that equation. Maybe this is something Dani could take a look at when the current site update stuff is out of the way.

2

You could be right there. Replace Google search with DaniWeb search in that equation. Maybe this is something Dani could take a look at when the current site update stuff is out of the way.

or maybe she could "take a look" at auto-locking old threads, that can only be re-opened upon legitimate request to a moderator.

would be easy to implement, will quit appending bullshit answers to solved threads, quit wasting moderators time locking and deleting the swarms of one-off "me toos" and "gimmetehcodez" posters.

it would also save the rest of us from crafting detailed responses to the OP, thinking it's a current thread, only to find out afterwards that the damn thing is five years old. i don't know how many times i've done that, it's really aggravating.

Votes + Comments
here here
0

it would also save the rest of us from crafting detailed responses to the OP, thinking it's a current thread, only to find out afterwards that the damn thing is five years old. i don't know how many times i've done that, it's really aggravating.

It must be a bit of a shock for the person who raised the thread in the first place.

0

Having read all the posts, I still can't see a really good reason for not auto-locking a thread (say after a few months). Sorry HG. I've been on other sites following a link from Google and am about to post when I see the previous post date of 2006. Now thank 'god' I did see it, or I'd make a complete tit of myself. Wouldn't auto-locking prevent people from making tits of themselves?

2

most other sites have the courtesy to close their stale threads. they leave them available for archive purposes, but not allow them to become magnets for spammers, trolls, and other assorted retards.

allowing flotsam and jetsam from the internets to collect around old posts only serves to make the Daniweb site look incompetent . Passers-by from google links see our popular "Solved" threads with ridiculous "answers" and/or insipid commentary as final posts, sometimes pages worth.

if that's the kind of image you want to project, that of "inmates running the asylum", then keeping the threads open forever is the way to go.

0

Instead of closing old thread to prevent newbie and spammer to resurrecting dead ancient thread, we can give warning message to anyone who attempt to post in the old thread.

For example:
I come across an old thread in daniweb (which I forget to check the thread date). I feel so excited and I want to make a comment in that thread. So I click on "Reply" button.

Then, a warning message pop up and ask

This thread is ..... years old thread. 
Are you sure that you want you post in this thread?
[B]Yes[/B] - [B]No[/B]

Then, I have two options, if I click Yes, I will resume to post comment on that thread. If I click No, then I will discontinue to post comment.

2

okay, i'm a new user who just logged in to make my very first post ever, because i found some old thread on google, and i'm prepared to dazzle the world with my "solution" on how to best "gets()" input from the terminal.

i'm already ignoring the bold text on the message input that says the same thing. why would a popup be any different?

just lock the stale threads down. random posts 3 years after the fact don't contribute anything, they just make this site look like its full of retards to anyone who finds it afterwards.

0

just lock the stale threads down. random posts 3 years after the fact don't contribute anything, they just make this site look like its full of retards to anyone who finds it afterwards.

Say it as it is J, don't pull your punches! J for President! :icon_lol:

0

@invisal

If you're still here after all this time. If a popup pops up AFTER you've written your masterpiece and you realise that you're posting to a thread that died 6 years ago, you have 2 choices - post anyway and look like a tool or scrub 20 minutes of your life and put it down to experience. Perhaps having a popup at the start would be better. I'm still foreman killjoy though - close 'em, close 'em all.:icon_mad:

Is it me or do all the first set of smilies look jumbled up?

:?: - this guy looks like an unlucky s.o.b from the Deer Hunter - I suppose it's supposed to be a red question mark, but it looks like blood to me. Anyway, this is another thread methinks.

This question has already been answered. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.