I just read a thread in one of the other boards and my initial thought was “Wow, 9 posts, but the poster registered 1999: That guy sure is rarely posting.”
Then I read the thread and it became clear that it was just a bumped, ancient thread. I curse myself for never checking the timestamps.
The thread in question was manually closed by a mod.
Anyway, since the problem of old threads being bumped seems to arise every now and then, I was wondering whether it was technically possible to automatically close threads that haven’t been posted to in the last 3 months?
That would probably solve the problem and I cannot see any downside to it.
I don’t see the “problem”.
Why should it matter how old the thread is ?
Sometimes I read the “Cecil’s Classic columns” and decide to post something. Rather than start a new thread I will search for one on that topic.
If it’s there, and I feel I have something new to add, why shouldn’t I just post where the all the prior discussion is?
I know some people think it’s “proper” to start a new thread, link to the old thread, and force people to juggle two threads to make sense of it.
I, on the other hand, am one of those who submit that it is “more proper” just to post on the original thread.
Your “confusion” seems to be based on wanting to discover a low-volume poster.
While this is a popular and noble hobby, it should not take precedence over discussion of Cecil’s columns or other topics.
I don’t think that’s correct. It’s not that “some people” deem it proper to start a new thread, it’s actually a rule around here not to revive old threads. Since it is a rule, I was wondering whether it was possible to autoclose threads, instead of giving an “offender” a slap on the wrists each time an old thread is revived.
And when a thread is 3 months old, it is reasonable to assume that the conversation there has died down, so if you’re looking for renewed debate, it is also reasonable to request that you make a new thread. After all, some people (I for one), tend to read the start of a thread first and are likely to respond to that. If it is something that has been resolved for months or even years, it’s a collosal waste of time for all parties involved.
Something different: Does anybody know, whether there is a good synonym for “thread”? I briefly considered “topic”, but wasn’t too comfortable with it, hence the repitition.
Cajun Man quoted the guidelines too, QED. I doubt that will answer TheMadHun.
How’s this?
Finding that old threads have been bumped is a pain in the butt, whether it be the example of a discussion on Cecil’s coloumns or the MPSIMS thread referred to. It is boring, it is confusing, nobody likes it, and it can lead to fresh upsets.
There’s no “juggling” of threads if you use the “link to” system. The BBQ Pit uses that all the time – you see any problem there?
Anyway, to answert the OP, I wandered over to vBulletin, and checked out the demo admin screen. The don’t have a Mass Lock feature, like tForum (a free, open-source message board package) does. I coded a Mass Delete of Locked Threads routine for the latter, so I know it’s possible, and not even particularly difficult (I did wipe out a DB during a test run, but that’s another story). The question is whether the tech people and the administration feel such a feature is warranted. My guess is that they don’t, or they would have by now, I should think.
I remember reading, a long time back, an official response that said [paraphrasing]:
“One of the reasons it is a rule is because those that originally participated in the thread may no longer be around to [explain/defend/expand on/respond to comments about] their posts in the thread.”
I’m not sure if that’s part of the FAQ or whether it was a post from a mod, but it is rather sound reasoning. My connection is too slow to do a search.
This seems like a pretty good idea, though I must confess I’ll be disappointed that my now-infamous telemarketer thread wouldn’t be able to shamble out of the grave for its twice-yearly appearances.
