0

For a while I have been thinking this but never got around to saying it. As we all know hijacked threads is a big problem and the solution that came to my mind was perhaps to setup a function where all threads that are older than two years are automatically marked as closed and can only be reopened by the topic owner. Do you think this would be possible to do as it would make it impossible to hijack old threads.

14
Contributors
44
Replies
46
Views
7 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by WaltP
Featured Replies
  • 2

    that wont solve most of it. most thread hijacking occurs in current threads. And while this is annoying, it is easy to deal with. simply tell them to make their own thread and ignore them afterwards. the issue self resolves. what's more of a problem is how every other dipshit … Read More

  • 2

    [QUOTE=VernonDozier;1164055][URL="http://www.daniweb.com/forums/thread90228.html"] Exhibit A[/URL] Some bumps are worth reading.[/QUOTE] But what you can't see is the dozen of posts deleted by moderators on that thread, all asking for help, promoting signature-links, or mee-too'ing. But you're right, some bumps are worth reading. The problem is that most of them aren't :( Read More

  • Upon reflection, I suppose it wouldn't be the end of the world if that thread had been automatically closed. It appears that only me and The Dude had anything good to say about bumping old threads, so I guess I'll bow to the majority and withdraw my objection. I swear … Read More

  • 1
    diafol 3,720   7 Years Ago

    I started a thread on this very issue: [url]http://www.daniweb.com/forums/thread265375.html[/url] Autoclose would solve so many issues. Making a formal request to include a new post (enclosed in said request) to a closed thread may be an option. If the mod thinks it's OK, thread can be re-opened. Otherwise new poster can … Read More

  • 2

    wait, what? someone on the internets is being a jerk? hold the phone... Read More

2

that wont solve most of it. most thread hijacking occurs in current threads. And while this is annoying, it is easy to deal with. simply tell them to make their own thread and ignore them afterwards. the issue self resolves.

what's more of a problem is how every other dipshit comes along posting an "answer" to a thread that is 4 years old. Their answers invariably suck, and will wind up appearing to be a solution to other people who find the thread in their searches later.

The Powers-That-Be seem to think that by leaving threads open indefinitely we wont deprive ourselves of some gem that comes along at some unspecified later date.

But I have yet to see any time anyone ever contributed anything remotely meaningful to a thread that has been dead for more than three months.

Simple solution, after 3 months of inactivity, auto-lock the thread. allow such threads to be unlocked only by a specific request from a member. that way, they'll really have something meaningful to request a closed thread be reopened.

and i wont keep getting stupid emails telling me that someone's replied to a thread i havent even thought about in 2 years.

0

I agree with you jephthah. My 2 years guess was only a rough estimate but yes it would make more sense for it to be 3 or 4 months.

-1

But I have yet to see any time anyone ever contributed anything remotely meaningful to a thread that has been dead for more than three months.


Exhibit A

Some bumps are worth reading.

2


Exhibit A

Some bumps are worth reading.

But what you can't see is the dozen of posts deleted by moderators on that thread, all asking for help, promoting signature-links, or mee-too'ing.
But you're right, some bumps are worth reading. The problem is that most of them aren't :(

Edited by Nick Evan: n/a

0


Exhibit A

Some bumps are worth reading.

um, I'm not seeing it there. I read those bumps, and now I want my 5 minutes back.

other than a bunch of me-too's and fake signatures, all i saw was one marginally-interesting note that the OP's code for Windows didn't port to Linux. Portability problems are hardly news. And it's not very insightful, since no one ever posted a solution to that issue.

in any event, a request that a thread be unlocked can be made by anyone who has something to add. it just forces them to be accountable for their posts, and only users with some amount of credibility will likely ever request threads be reopened.

and you'll notice that the thread in question wound up being closed anyhow, for the very reason that it became yet another magnet for worthless me-too and fake signature posts.


EDIT: but i will admit my previous use of any and ever was a bit hyperbolic. i should say :

"I rarely ever see someone contributing a meaningful bump to a thread that has been dead for more than three months. Even then, those few times are completely overwhelmed by the amount of me-too's, fake signatures, clueless hijackers, and other generally worthless posts "


.

Edited by jephthah: n/a

2

Upon reflection, I suppose it wouldn't be the end of the world if that thread had been automatically closed. It appears that only me and The Dude had anything good to say about bumping old threads, so I guess I'll bow to the majority and withdraw my objection. I swear to God I got a virus right after clicking one of his bump links two years ago. I imagine the fact that I objected was the only thing preventing it from being done, so you now have my permission. :P

But I have been confused for a while. What exactly is this fake signature everyone keeps talking about? I see it referenced all over the place, but I have no idea what it is.

Votes + Comments
eh, it's not clear where the majority is. some are just noisier than others :P anyhow, i was using the term "fake sigs" too loosely.
1

I started a thread on this very issue: http://www.daniweb.com/forums/thread265375.html

Autoclose would solve so many issues. Making a formal request to include a new post (enclosed in said request) to a closed thread may be an option. If the mod thinks it's OK, thread can be re-opened. Otherwise new poster can be told to go forth and multiply.

0

But I have been confused for a while. What exactly is this fake signature everyone keeps talking about? I see it referenced all over the place, but I have no idea what it is.

A fake signature is when they put the sig and links directly within the message body, instead of the site-wide user signature.
As in:

Ezzaral
www.example.com

0

A fake signature is when they put the sig and links directly within the message body, instead of the site-wide user signature.
As in:

Ezzaral
www.example.com

Ah, good to know. Is that some Search Engine thing where you put your "Eat At Joe's" link in the post itself and that gets you more hits than if you had just put it in the signature itself?

0

Ah, good to know. Is that some Search Engine thing where you put your "Eat At Joe's" link in the post itself and that gets you more hits than if you had just put it in the signature itself?

'fake sigs' is just a catchall term for people who make stupid posts of the "me too" variety or presenting otherwise worthless or redundant information, just to present their signature containing links to their promotion site.

1

'fake sigs' is just a catchall term for people who make stupid posts of the "me too" variety or presenting otherwise worthless or redundant information, just to present their signature containing links to their promotion site.

Hmm. Maybe we should change the Daniweb slogan to

Daniweb is a community of 727,162 developers, Internet marketers, tech gurus, and people who make stupid posts of the "me too" variety or present otherwise worthless or redundant information, who are all enthusiastic about making contacts, networking, and learning from each other, or presenting their signature containing links to their promotion site.


But to be fair, I guess this group falls under "Internet Marketers making contacts".

Any idea what percentage of us are actually developers and tech gurus enthusiastic about learning from each other? I'm guessing at least 2%.

Sigh....

0

> But to be fair, I guess this group falls under "Internet Marketers making contacts".
Ah, English irregular verbs, don't you just love 'em.
"I'm an internet marketer"
"You're a spammer"
"He's being prosecuted under the computer mis-use act"

0

Actually, when we refer to a 'fake sig' at DaniWeb what we mean is a signature/URL that appears in the message body text rather than by using the signature facility we provide.

0

You could get rid of the spam problem almost completely by requiring that anyone posting in a thread which 'died' more than 3 months ago has at least X amount of posts. Even if X was a fairly small amount it would help. This would also eliminate the need to give certain people special permission to post in a 'dead' thread because presumably, those people would already have more than 50-100 posts and would have better judgment to post/not post in an older thread.

1

i thought that was a good idea at first, but then I think about it for a moment, and i'm not so sure....

IMO, the few people who legitimately bump threads are newer users and they bump them b/c they misunderstand what was being discussed or the solution presented and are seeking clarification.

having a minimum post count would exclude the very people who are most likely be the few legitimate thread-bumpers in the first place.

it also imposes another layer of membership-status to segregate "probationary members" from the general population, as well requiring differentiating auto-closed threads from those closed due to specific abuse. That seems like a more substantial change to the site architecture.

an auto-close of all threads idle for more than 90 days would be easy to implement across the board. Moderators would have the ability to unlock a thread by request, per their discretion.


.

Edited by jephthah: n/a

0

So make ALL posts to a thread marked with

This thread is more than three months old.
Perhaps start a new thread instead?

go directly into a moderation queue, where the mods can directly
- allow
- delete
- move
as appropriate.

Saves the rest of us having to report most of them for some violation or other.

1

indeed.

there's always room for another 73-page thread of opinions on U.S. politics on the interwebs.

0

having a minimum post count would exclude the very people who are most likely be the few legitimate thread-bumpers in the first place.

I hadn't thought about it like that, but I agree with you. I like Salem's idea better, as it would save everyone the hassle of seeing those older threads and the problem would be dealt with more quickly.

1

because if we closed them after a period of inactivity, we'd miss gems like this.

Posts deleted. Next time please use the "flag bad post" link instead of replying here. It saves me some time when I don't have to read each and every thread on DW. :icon_wink:

0

i thought it was more fun to use it as an example of why we need to close threads after "x" number of months of inactivity.

0

Yes and this thread is 12 days old and still Dani has taken no action. How long do we need to wait before such a feature will be introduced?

1

Wasn't sure if this was relevant here or if I should start a new thread...

Is there a new thread restriction for new members that I'm not aware of?

This post is a hijack attempt. The user claims the forum won't let him start a thread... I told him how (I'll admit, a little harshly), but he's being a bit of a jerk about it.

Edited by Fbody: n/a

0

Is there a new thread restriction for new members that I'm not aware of?

The user claims the forum won't let him start a thread... I told him how (I'll admit, a little harshly), but he's being a bit of a jerk about it.

Nope. No restriction. He just either couldn't figure out how or didn't want to do it the right way after you told him how.

0

Posts deleted. Next time please use the "flag bad post" link instead of replying here. It saves me some time when I don't have to read each and every thread on DW. :icon_wink:

But now I don't get to see it!

:(

0

Yes and this thread is 12 days old and still Dani has taken no action. How long do we need to wait before such a feature will be introduced?

She already has taken action. This topic has been discusses several times over the last 5 years that I have been a member. Dani has consistently stated she will not do it.

0

She already has taken action. This topic has been discusses several times over the last 5 years that I have been a member. Dani has consistently stated she will not do it.

Is there any reason why because it would solve a lot of moderation problems. Or if dani thinks not having the post box would mean having fewer new members then perhaps when the post is made on a topic older than 4 months a question pops up "Are you already a member" and if the answer is yes then the post is ignored/deleted or if they aren't a member then a new topic would automatically be created after the registration process. Would that be a probable solution?

This topic has been dead for over six months. 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.