Old threads

[Plonker 3]

Would it be possible for threads that haven't been posted in for a set period of time be locked?

seems there's quite a few that are being resurrected for no real reason.

 

[dan86]

good idea Dillib. what sort of timescale do you reckon would be sufficient?

 

[Plonker 3]

6 months wouldn't be unreasonable. It can then still be found if searched for just then people can start a new thread etc.

 

[dan86]

6 months is kind of the figure I had in my head too. gives ample opportunity for anybody to reply with a genuine reply, and can still be found of anybody wants to.

 

[Octopus]

Great idea, have you asked the mods?

 

[dan86]

Great idea, have you asked the mods?

yes. just pm'd them

 

[ian.settle1]

Good idea as new members are raking up posts tha are 5 years old

 

[Marvo]

I've highlighted this as an topic for staff discussion over the next few days.

 

[Adam W]

Is it really that much of a problem? Maybe if someone is asking for help after a while they can be assumed not to need it any more otherwise they would have said, but there are a lot of topics which I think can quite happily be resurrected after a few years and still be valid - how often do we need a new 'neutrals at switches', 'exporting PME' or 'best van for an electrician' thread?
Automatically closing threads for no reason other than they're 'old' just seems like unnecessary nannying.

 

[davesparks]

It is really irritating to see a thread appear in the new posts feed and it is just due to someone posting a nonsense few words at the end of a thread that has been dead for years.

Closing threads which have been inactive for 6 months would be a good thing, obviously not the same as closing any thread 6 months old.

 

[LeeH]

I'm don't agree with this, why start a new thread when there is still a relevant old one.

A new guy comes a long and ask a question, "use the search" is a common a answer for common questions.

The OP then can ask his questions on the thread he has read.

Don't see the logic in closing old threads.

 

[Plonker 3]

Well if that was he case, why do we get several threads a week asking about "exporting" PME, TT earthing etc, when there is already plenty of other places which could be referenced too?

every job is unique so it is easier and helps keep it clearer for one job one thread surely?

 

[Badged01]

Close them down I say too ......... :thumbs_down:

 

[telectrix]

even if closed or locked, they're still there to be read. anyone who has questions about the subject of the thread can open a new thread.

 

[Adam W]

This all seems to be based around the assumption that everyone comes here to ask a question, then someone gives them the answer.

The problem I envisage is if someone starts some project and asks advice on it, then wants to give an update a year or so later but finds they can't because it's been automatically locked because newbies had been resurrecting old threads.
Also I've been on computer forums which I've found after googling a problem, had a similar problem and I've really wanted to just post something like 'I've got the same problem. I've tried all that but it still doesn't work' without having to explain the problem again, and have everyone suggest all the possible solutions which I've already tried.

Maybe a suitable compromise could be if when a thread is started there is option to flag it as a 'question' which can then be locked after 6 months' inactivity?
Alternatively maybe the option at the end of a thread could redirect users to the new threads instead of similar previous threads?

 

[LeeH]

I think some people want to fix something that isn't broken.

 

[Plonker 3]

Threads can be unlocked as well as locked, so if someone in a situation cam back they could request it be opened again. What usually happens though is some one will post a answer to thread that is over 3 years old, then others join in before realising that OP hasn't been online for over a year so pretty pointless leaving it open.

if some does have a similar situation why not just post a link to the thread if needed to explain, but very rarely does that happen on here.

 

[GMES]

yep I agree get them closed, I have fallen for it a few times of late and it is a pain when you read the freshest replies and dont realise, then you go back to the beginning without looking at the date.

 

[Adam W]

Maybe those who are really bothered about the age of a thread should check the date of it before replying, and if they don't like it simply move on to the next one.

 

[Marvo]

...........Alternatively maybe the option at the end of a thread could redirect users to the new threads instead of similar previous threads?

If you scroll right down below the last post on any thread you'll see a heading the says 'similar threads' and it gives you 5 or 6 links to other threads with similar tags or keywords. That's one way Dillb could have found this thread and bumped it rather than starting an identical new thread

 

[Paul.M]

My 2p worth.... How about a "Library" for old and useful threads within the forum section which they belong?

The members select which ones, tell Admin and it gets posted up as a sub-forum. That will work.

 

[LeeH]

I'm going to laugh when this gets bumped in 5 years.

 

[Adam W]

If you scroll right down below the last post on any thread you'll see a heading the says 'similar threads' and it gives you 5 or 6 links to other threads with similar tags or keywords. That's one way Dillb could have found this thread and bumped it rather than starting an identical new thread

That's the bit I'm on about - i reckon that's why most of the old threads are unintentionally resurrected.

 

[moospark]

What does it matter, if the information contained is still relevant?

 

[Paul.M]

What does it matter, if the information contained is still relevant?

Think of the Library as a sticky? It always there and members can post up a link to easily when the same question is asked????

 

[moospark]

Think of the Library as a sticky? It always there and members can post up a link to easily when the same question is asked????

Fair enough, just not the way I do it. If I've got a daft question, I google it. Nine times out of ten, I get re-directed to the forum, get my question answered, and enjoy a couple of pages of some poor sod getting ripped a new one.

 

[Paul.M]

Fair enough, just not the way I do it. If I've got a daft question, I google it. Nine times out of ten, I get re-directed to the forum, get my question answered, and enjoy a couple of pages of some poor sod getting ripped a new one.

Do you want education or entertainment?? In a selected Library chosen by long established members, you will have access to threads that are debated a lot of the time. If you want a bit of fun, go to the chit chat room.

 

[moospark]

Do you want education or entertainment?? In a selected Library chosen by long established members, you will have access to threads that are debated a lot of the time. If you want a bit of fun, go to the chit chat room.

Both, If I want purely education, I have lots of solemn books, where I know most of the words. if I want purely entertainment, I like fishing and playing guitar.

 

[Paul.M]

Both, If I want purely education, I have lots of solemn books, where I know most of the words. if I want purely entertainment, I like fishing and playing guitar.

Books are great. Why are you still using a google search if you already have the answers? Just looking at the banter are we??? Please continue with useless posts upon this thread that is discussing the running of the forum.

Let the true members of the forum make the suggestions. Your attempt at humor has not entertained us.

 

[moospark]

Books are great. Why are you still using a google search if you already have the answers? Just looking at the banter are we??? Please continue with useless posts upon this thread that is discussing the running of the forum.

Let the true members of the forum make the suggestions. Your attempt at humor has not entertained us.

Actually love the banter. Sorry, what is a 'true member of this forum". Also, "not entertained us", as in the royal 'We' or 'you'? Nobody else seems to be slagging me?