Ancient Message revivals?

[EnderX]

I'm kind of curious. Is there a reason for resurrecting so many ancient topics (most of them appear to have been started in 2002, for example), or is The Dude (Usually most recent poster) just having some fun?

[dcc]

What can one say, they have too much time on their hands?

The obvious problem with threads that are several months to several years old is that the problem has already been taken care of in one fashion or another. There's always the possibility that the member doesn't even return here.

I would like to see a lock placed on threads after a specific amount of elapsed time. If anyone wanted to discuss the topic of a closed thread there is nothing to stop them from starting their own thread on the subject.

This would also stop one of the other problems that occur when people search through threads trying to answer their problem and find one that has their type of problem but doesn't solve their specific problem. The trouble starts when this person reopens a thread and says yeah...I have the same problem, did anyone find a solution?
Most members see a thread this old or with a number of posts and won't bother with it so the person posting in the old thread doesn't get the help that they need or would probably received if they had posted their own thread.

[Infarction]

What can one say, they have too much time on their hands?

The obvious problem with threads that are several months to several years old is that the problem has already been taken care of in one fashion or another. There's always the possibility that the member doesn't even return here.

I would like to see a lock placed on threads after a specific amount of elapsed time. If anyone wanted to discuss the topic of a closed thread there is nothing to stop them from starting their own thread on the subject.

This would also stop one of the other problems that occur when people search through threads trying to answer their problem and find one that has their type of problem but doesn't solve their specific problem. The trouble starts when this person reopens a thread and says yeah...I have the same problem, did anyone find a solution?
Most members see a thread this old or with a number of posts and won't bother with it so the person posting in the old thread doesn't get the help that they need or would probably received if they had posted their own thread.

Totally agree. Maybe have a function like "Refer to this" instead of "Reply to this"?

[Dani]

I'm not a fan of closing older threads because they are useful and helpful to much more than the thread starter. You just have to look at how many views each thread receives to see that thousands of people can be helped, and discussion can continue, even if the original poster is no longer active. I think that's the very definition of a forum and what makes forums great.

Otherwise, you can visit our IRC chat, ask a question, and once someone answers you, leave, and let the benefit of the discussion escape into the abyss when you log out.

On the flip side, all moderators in addition to the original poster have the ability to mark a thread as solved. When a thread is marked as solved, there is a big indicator saying there is no need to reply to this thread right above the quick reply box.

If a thread isn't marked solved, it's assumed that either it's a timeless topic (where discussion can continue infinitely without being dated) or the question has not been answered. Even if the original poster (OP) hasn't returned to DaniWeb, others may have the same question, and even if it takes one year for a question to be answered, it will still do good to all of the future people reading the thread, even if the OP is long gone. Better late than never!

Remember the millions and millions of visitors who surf DaniWeb's forum threads daily, learning from existing threads.

[John A]

I'm not a fan of closing older threads because they are useful and helpful to much more than the thread starter. You just have to look at how many views each thread receives to see that thousands of people can be helped, and discussion can continue, even if the original poster is no longer active. I think that's the very definition of a forum and what makes forums great.

I honestly don't see the disadvantage of closing old threads. Just because a thread can't be bumped doesn't mean it can't help other people. In fact, the vast majority of the old threads that other people use as a resource never get replied to, which is the way I like it.

What is the point of bumping old threads? The way I see it, there are 2 types of threads: support threads, and discussion threads. And there are 2 states for a support thread:

• the problem is solved
• or it isn't

If the problem is solved, there would be no point to bumping it. And if it isn't, chances are that if the person bumping the thread trys to help the OP, the OP is already gone or has moved on. If someone "has exactly the same problem!!!", then they should create a new topic. If the previous information in the said thread is relevant, they can link to that thread in their new thread.

Bumping discussion-type threads is also generally unproductive, because the content is usually outdated, likely gone off-topic, and no one cares anymore.

On the flip side, all moderators in addition to the original poster have the ability to mark a thread as solved. When a thread is marked as solved, there is a big indicator saying there is no need to reply to this thread right above the quick reply box.

That only works if the user scrolls down to the quick reply box. If they quote the original poster, they may never see that message.

['Stein]

Completely agreed.

[~s.o.s~]

Previously there was a strict policy followed by us C++ mods to close the bumped threads immediately but with the new rule set in, we can at the most split the post and create a new thread out of it. Its been a while since I closed a bumped thread. :-(