1

Have you guys encounter this problem before. Some of the new comers will just revived a 2 year old to 7 year old dead thread to say. Thanks for your help, it greatly solve my problem... blah blah blah. I thought the thread will end there next day another poster post the same thing. Greate help ...

I am not sure whether this has been discussed in daniweb before. But is that a way to like auto closed thread after a time limit the thread has not gotten any response. And those who have posted in the thread before still have access and post but new comers do not.

Votes + Comments
if that does not bother management , why that bothers you ?
It's another fine idea that will be routinely ignored by "da management"
10
Contributors
20
Replies
22
Views
6 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by pyTony
Featured Replies
  • 2
    Narue 5,707   6 Years Ago

    Old threads are not automatically closed because there's no reason why the discussion could not be continued profitably by newcomers. We've discussed the issue of bumping before, and concluded that it's not enough of an issue to introduce such heavy handed methods. However, bumping is indeed frowned upon if the … Read More

  • 1

    We have this nice new rule: [quote] Do ensure that all posts contain [B]relevant content and substance[/B] and are not simply vehicles for external links, [B]including signature links[/B] [/quote] So if you see someone bumping a thread for a "thank you diz iz greeeeat post!" [B]and[/B] (s)he has signature links: … Read More

  • 2

    Just to clarify, Walt, let me restate the rule so there is no confusion on your part: [B][U]Do ensure that all posts contain relevant content and substance and are not simply vehicles for external links, including signature links[/U][/B] Posts that are not relevant and/or have no substance [B]and[/B] act as … Read More

  • 2
    diafol 3,720   6 Years Ago

    This could be avoided, to a large extent, by closing threads after 3 months. I know we've discussed it to death, but I'm still not convinced that contributions after this are that useful. There again it's pointless going on about it. :( Read More

  • 2
    Salem 5,138   6 Years Ago

    Anyone with anything genuinely intelligent to add to an old thread would also be smart enough to either PM a mod to suggest the fact, or start a new thread with a backlink, and possibly suggest that threads be merged. Read More

0

@ Debasisdas

It does bother me because most of them are signature spammers and reporting their posts everytime does not really help the situation.

2

Old threads are not automatically closed because there's no reason why the discussion could not be continued profitably by newcomers. We've discussed the issue of bumping before, and concluded that it's not enough of an issue to introduce such heavy handed methods.

However, bumping is indeed frowned upon if the new post contains nothing that adds to the thread. The reason it's frowned upon is because bumping a thread that was not originally on page 1 of the forum will drop a thread that was to page 2. Falling to page 2 is the kiss of death for a thread, and it's completely unfair to the OP.

As such, I prefer to delete bumps (without applying an infraction or warning) unless they have significant value. "Thank you" and "me too" posts do not fall under that category, so I would suggest reporting them as you see them.

It does bother me because most of them are signature spammers

That's another issue entirely. Spammers should be reported so that they can be banned as quickly as possible.

Votes + Comments
yep
1

We have this nice new rule:

Do ensure that all posts contain relevant content and substance and are not simply vehicles for external links, including signature links

So if you see someone bumping a thread for a "thank you diz iz greeeeat post!" and (s)he has signature links: flag bad post and the spammer will get banned. Easy as that.

[edit]
Yeah, what ^ she said basically :)

Edited by Nick Evan: n/a

1

I wouldn't mind so much if there were some balance between "good" posts and "bad" posts on the end of dead threads.

But as it stands, the ratio is around 1:999 in favour of bad posts.

Bad posts we see repeatedly on a daily basis.
Good posts - well when was the last time you saw one?

Votes + Comments
Today:)
0

>> Do ensure that all posts contain relevant content and substance
>> and are not simply vehicles for external links, including signature links

Not necessarily an either/or. What about people who post stuff like you just posted ("thank you diz iz greeeeat post!") but who don't have an ulterior motive like spamming, but rather just an imbecile who, while possibly thinking he is adding something, isn't. Does the inane post lacking substance break a rule in and of itself? Other than the leet-speak?

Edited by VernonDozier: n/a

1

>> Do ensure that all posts contain relevant content and substance
>> and are not simply vehicles for external links, including signature links

Not necessarily an either/or. What about people who post stuff like you just posted ("thank you diz iz greeeeat post!") but who don't have an ulterior motive like spamming, but rather just an imbecile who, while possibly thinking he is adding something, isn't. Does the inane post lacking substance break a rule in and of itself? Other than the leet-speak?

Do ensure that all posts contain relevant content and substance is the rule.
and are not simply vehicles for external links, including signature links is simply a dangling statement that has no real bearing on the rule. The 'rule' includes many types of posts that are not allowed, whereas the dangling statement includes only one explicit type and therefore confuses the rule. Restating the rule without the confusion:
Do ensure that all posts contain relevant content and substance. For example, posts that are simply vehicles for external links (including signature links) are not allowed.

IMAO.... :icon_wink:

Edited by WaltP: n/a

2

Just to clarify, Walt, let me restate the rule so there is no confusion on your part:

Do ensure that all posts contain relevant content and substance and are not simply vehicles for external links, including signature links

Posts that are not relevant and/or have no substance and act as vehicles for external links break the rule.

Posts that are not relevant and/or have no substance but do not have external links do not break the rule.

As Nick says, being stupid isn't currently a crime. Those posters who do not break this, or any other rule, but otherwise fall into the annoying dumbass category should be dealt with by way of a guiding hand PM from the mods which serves to gently prod them in the right direction towards becoming a valuable member of the community.

Votes + Comments
Nice said
0

How about crappy answers like buying a new laptop? Does that need flagging too? ALthought it has no spam links, it clutter up the thread with useless info.

0

Talking of which... :)

Seriously, 'buy a new laptop' could be a perfectly legit response - it depends entirely upon the question...

Edited by happygeek: n/a

0

I would like to see Dani apply those same rules over on PFO. There currently are no rules against sig only spamming, so many of them are not deleted, although I must admit to deleting them anyway in some cases. For example I'll delete "nice post, thanks for sharing" type posts even though there are no rules forbidding it.

0

Just to clarify, Walt, let me restate the rule so there is no confusion on your part:

Do ensure that all posts contain relevant content and substance and are not simply vehicles for external links, including signature links

Posts that are not relevant and/or have no substance and act as vehicles for external links break the rule.

Posts that are not relevant and/or have no substance but do not have external links do not break the rule.

As Nick says, being stupid isn't currently a crime. Those posters who do not break this, or any other rule, but otherwise fall into the annoying dumbass category should be dealt with by way of a guiding hand PM from the mods which serves to gently prod them in the right direction towards becoming a valuable member of the community.

Ahhh, then the rule is backwards. As stated, content is of primary import for all posts and links is secondary. Your description explains that the links are the most important and content must be existent IFF you post with links.

Therefore the rule needs to be restated more like
Do ensure that all posts that contain external links, including signature links, also contain relevant content and substance
to accurately describe the rule.


Sorry for being pedantic here, but if I'm confused by a rule, many others (especially the stupid) will probably not understand the rule. I'm simply trying to make it understandable to all, including us mods, so we do not misinterpret the rules.

0

Perfect example of what i am saying. Except no spam links. Tell me what is the difference between the two posts below

Attachments Screen_shot_2011-07-22_at_PM_08.52_.44_.png 165.41 KB
0

Perfect example of what i am saying. Except no spam links.

We don't police content that isn't in violation of the rules[1]. On top of being draconian, the workload for mods would increase exponentially (there are a lot of stupid posts every day). If the posts have identical content with different wording, feel free to report the most recent one as a duplicate, but I won't guarantee that it will be treated as such.


[1] With the exception of the Viruses, Spyware and Other Nasties forum, where bad advice can be catastrophic.

0

Ok. So crappy answers are most likely to be ignore. Also duplicated post will not be dealt with but duplicate thread will, right?

0

So crappy answers are most likely to be ignore.

Unless they otherwise violate the rules. It's not the moderators' job to ensure post quality. They simply enforce the rules.

Also duplicated post will not be dealt with but duplicate thread will, right?

Exact duplicates will be deleted. Your example was not an exact duplicate, so whether it would be deleted or not is up to the discretion of the moderator.

2

This could be avoided, to a large extent, by closing threads after 3 months. I know we've discussed it to death, but I'm still not convinced that contributions after this are that useful. There again it's pointless going on about it. :(

Edited by diafol: n/a

Votes + Comments
agreed
Agreed. Yes we have. Yes it is.
0

>> This could be avoided, to a large extent, by closing threads after 3 months. I know we've discussed it to death, but I'm still not convinced that contributions after this are that useful. There again it's pointless going on about it. :(


I remember being on the "con" side of this and trying to find a good example of a thread being really old and then revived by someone with a brilliant comment. Never found one, not for want of looking, so I converted to the "pro" side. I found a few that I felt I could comment on, not that it would be a "brilliant" comment, but at least a worthwhile one, but I decided it would be really cheesy to bump an old thread, then cite THAT thread as the example.

2

Anyone with anything genuinely intelligent to add to an old thread would also be smart enough to either PM a mod to suggest the fact, or start a new thread with a backlink, and possibly suggest that threads be merged.

0

The thread is marked solved, but as I have something of value, I still bump this one.

If post is good intending thanks, delete post and send standard response PM advicing about giving rep to good answers.

Close old threads, but add in end message to possible late answers suggestion of new hint-thread for non-programming answers or code snippet for code answers.

One old thread in Python forum at least got one good answer and I spotted it to mods for code snippet. The mods agreed with thanks, and the snippet got even upvoted by one other member besides me. So it does happen but rarely.

Edited by pyTony: n/a

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.