I noticed recently a few posts turning up on otherwise solved or old (more than 6 months) threads.
Is it not possible to prevent anyone from adding to threads more than a certain length of time old, or solved?
I do sometimes look at solved or old threads to glean information, but new posters are not very likeley to get replies or help if they post there, thus maybe turning them away from this otherwise amazing site!

I'm confused by your question. We do allow threads to be responded to at any time in the future, because even if they don't necessarily help the original poster, they might help someone else down the line. However, do you mean that people are resurrecting old threads with their own unrelated questions?

Not quite, they are resurrecting old threads, but not with unrelated questions. I just think it's less likeley for them to get help or an answer if they post on a thread thats say, 1 year old, or solved, because it might get skipped over by viewers, whereas a new thread would get views, and therefore help.

Can you link me to a couple of threads you're talking about?

I'd prefer a way to split the thread, so the new reply will become a new question.

There is an example of one here. It is a thread that was marked as solved three years ago. A new poster popped in just to say "Thanks. It worked in my VB2010 also." Hardly a valid reason to resurrect an old thread.

I really don't see how anyone can stop this really... the best solution is to just close them permanently after several months but there is still flaws to that idea. What if someone wanted to post a better solution to the original question even though the thread is abandoned?

Then you post new, 'I've just read 'blah blah blah' link, and I think a better fix would be......

I was just thinking of noobs, like I was not so long ago, who may unwittingly post on an old solved thread, and then be dissatisfied when they didn't get a result,and therefore going elsewhere and maybe telling classmates etc,'Don't bother with DW, you never get replies'

Firstly, there's a big glaring notice above the reply field that says "This thread is old" or "This thread is solved" with a link to start a new thread instead.

Also, suppose I come in from Google to a particular thread. I want to read everything about it, right there, on that page. A new thread saying "I've just read..." would be a nightmare me thinks.

My day job is maintenance. During the winter, the bar was closed for refurbishment, with two 6ft by 3ft
boards outside saying so. Practically everyday for the time we were closed I had people coming in saying
'Are you open?' People don't read or see what they dont want to.
But I take your point, 'nuff said.

the types of "people" that irritate me the most on this topic would be the people that would post about 3 times maximum and never come back.

I didn't mean to shoot down your idea. Just that ... I know from experience, people come in from a Google search, they see if the page offers what they want it to, and if it doesn't, they bounce back to the google search results. They'd never have a way to find other threads that referenced the thread.

You didn't shoot down any idea. The problem is that this is one of those topics where you can never settle with. You might as well keep the forums open and not close them unless it is manually done by an admin/mod.

Some questions are timeless. I personally don't mind a thread bump of a solved problem if the poster bumping has something valuable to add. "Valuable" is subjective of course, but that is true of all posts. The pop-up saying that this is an old or solved thread is a good idea since you may not have noticed the date. I think that's sufficient. The whole idea of forums is that (hopefully) a new poster will search the old threads and find the answer without having to create a new thread. Hence if the thread is "solved" to the point that the original question has been answered, you can still make a valuable contribution to make the solution even better and that will help the poster searching ayear later. An example might be code that has been posted with a particular error, that error is addressed by the early posts, the thread is "solved", but a bug remains (say a seg fault or memory leak that might arise if different data is used). By all means, point that out, even if it's a year later. IMO an automated solution that does not allow that is detrimental to the forum. The larger question is what percentage of thread bumps actually fall into that category.

So what to do when a three year old solved thread gets a new, totally useless post that says

Thanks. That really helped me too.

Do we delete the new post with a comment such as

This thread is xxx years old and has been marked as solved.

or perhaps a more terse (and appropriate for this type of post)

Post deleted. No useful content.

which would bump the thread back to the bottom of the queue, or do we respond, in the same thread, with something like

We appreciate your willingness to contribute but please check the dates on posts before you respond to them. This thread is several years old and it is likely that the original poster (OP) no longer needs help with this issue. Reviving this thread pushes more recent threads further down the list. If you continue to revive old threads you may be hit with an infraction.

or should we just ignore it?

Thanks. That really helped me too.

Personally, I appreciate these responses as long as they are not blatant signature spam. But if they're genuine, I usually upvote the person.

To each their own.

Ever since I first saw people complaining about resurrecting an old thread, I've always felt that that the obvious solution is to modify how the age of a post is displayed. As it appears now, there's very little difference at a glance between "4 Hours Ago" and "4 Years Ago."

I'm not one of the people who is disturbed by an old thread popping up again, but for the sake of those people there ought to be a proportionate visual difference between small amounts of time and large amounts of time. I'm not sure exactly how that should be achieved, but I imagine at least the age of a post should grow larger and bolder as the post grows older.

An even more forceful representation would be to show the age of a post by showing the date of the post, the current date, and all the time that has passed between, as on a calendar. So for a post from last Friday, there could be "Fri, Sat, Sun, Mon, Tue" with "Fri" somehow marked to indicate that it's the date of the post. A post from 2010 could be marked "2010, 2011, 2012, 2013", with years represented in a far more intense font than days, allowing you to visually assess the age of a post without reading.

commented: A good idea +0

I'm not sure exactly how that should be achieved, but I imagine at least the age of a post should grow larger and bolder as the post grows older.

I like that idea. Perhaps make it stand out by using a bold font and red color after our age threshold. Something to consider.

And this link (from today!)
Click Here
is precicely what this thread was originaly about, take a look at the last 3 or so!

Wouldn't it depend on the thread's content? For example, if someone complained that a link to a compiler was dead, and you realise they are asking this in a thread that is four years old, then it would be understandable to point out what's what regarding the age of the thread, etc...

But, if someone is benefitting from a certain programming method they've found via Google and registered and either didn't realise, or disregarded the age of the thread, can it really be said that there is something wrong with this?

If it is deemed necessary to do something about the resurfacing of old threads, then why not have an archive section were posts are still accessible but locked to replies, along with a welcoming suggestion to ask their question in the relevant forum?

For example, if someone complained that a link to a compiler was dead, and you realise they are asking this in a thread that is four years old, then it would be understandable to point out what's what regarding the age of the thread, etc...

Daniweb policy is about objectivity; if we can't objectively defend an action, then no action takes place. If the necrobump post is both relevant and not spam then it's acceptable. Who are we to say that a discussion older than N days, weeks, or months can't be continued? If the necrobump post is not relevant or constitutes spam, it gets the axe because in that case the current threads on page 1 take precedence. The problem in my opinion is that bumping a post not already on page 1 will push another post that was on page 1 to page 2. A thread falling to page 2 is the kiss of death, and it's not fair to the author.

I personally think it's an insult to current thread authors to allow valueless necrobumps that might push them to the second page. However, flat out deleting innocent posts that a mod subjectively deems "valueless" could very easily turn a potentially valuable new member off to the community. That's why we specifically focus on relevancy and non-spam as indicators of when to allow a bump.

The reason why bumping and necroposting is not a concern of mine is because 99% of our traffic comes directly to individual threads from Google search results. People come in, and land on a forum thread, and want to see everything related right there on that page, regardless of how old or new the post is. They are not going to find their way to the forum listing to find related threads. They're just not.

The thing is that ONLY the regulars visit the forum listing page, which makes up such a negligible percentage of our overall traffic. In this case, I'd rather cater to the 99% than to the 1%.

@Dani, please take a look at the link I posted 4 hours ago. It illustrates exactly what I meant. Even after another member has pointed out that the thread is 9 years old, two donuts have posted replies!
A pop up, or alert box "Are you blind you donut, can you not see the thread is long dead!" Maybe?

A pop up, or alert box "Are you blind you donut, can you not see the thread is long dead!" Maybe?

We already have a large notice above the message box, and I don't want to prevent bumping old threads altogether. A larger notice would make no difference.