Every once in a while, someone revives a zombie thread, and a mod promptly locks it and notes that we should not revive old threads, and instead just link to them.
Is it possible (and simple) to lock all threads older than, say, 6 months?
This way, we don’t get to see the zombie threads revived.
If old threads are never meant to be revived, why leave the option to do so?
It is not good to revive old threads in some forums. In other forums, it’s OK, it sort of depends on the circs.
Aren’t our mods & admins overworked enough as it is?
Think about it - every thread opened by one of our umpteen thousand members would have to later be locked by one of our dozen or so mods. That’s a lot of work. And before you ask, they have a policy of not fiddling with the source code, which is what would have to be done to make it happen automatically.
Plus, while reviving old threads is generally discouraged, referring to them and/or citing them is common.
Oops – my bad. Just locking a thread wouldn’t affect what I just said. I was thinking deleting.
In which forums is it allowed?
There seems to be an easy way to do this
From vbulletin.org
We’re not big on hacks, Jerry most of all, because every time we update, all hacks go away.
However, maybe this could be an exception, might be useful. I’ll bring it to his attention. Might help reduce the load on the server, too, which would be a plus.
your humble TubaDiva
Why would a locked thread be less work for the server than an unlocked one?
I don’t know VB Bulletin specifically. But a locked thread would presumably become a read-only resource. As such it can be handelled differently and more efficiently that an unlocked (read-write) thread.
(Such things as not needing to be even considered in terms of incremental backups and rebuilding indexes comes to mind).
If the cron job is set to lock anything where the last post to it is more than n days old, then if a thread is unlocked by a mod due to the request by a member that is considered reasonable and appropriate (Like the rememberance day thread for example) it will not be immediately relocked as soon as the cron job runs again.
You’re probably thinking of R/O files vs. R/W files, but vB stores all posts and threads in a single SQL database, I believe. As such, the only thing that flags a locked thread/post is probably a flag byte or bit. The locked/unlocked status is not a system or file level condition, but a PHP variable value. And rebuilding indexes would require reindexing all data, locked or not, if you want to be able to search. Incremental backups, nope – an inactive thread is the same as a locked, inactive thread to an incremental bu, and besides, if everything is stored in one large file, all it takes is a single post added to flag the entire file for an incremental backup. And how often are incremental backups done? Once a day?
I don’t see it.
Reviving old threads is permitted under certain circumstances in Cafe Society. Specifically, new information may come up about an old movie discussion, where the poster wants to expand the old thread. Gratuitous reviving of an old thread to start a whole new topic, however, is not acceptable.
Reviving old threads is also permitted in Comments on Cecil’s Column and Comments on Staff Reports. It’s a bit problematic, since new posters (guests) cannot search and so couldn’t find old threads anyway, but the idea is that it’s OK to confine comments on a specific column to one thread.
One of the main reasons we don’t like revivials of old threads in the more argumentative forums (like, say, Great Debates or the Pit) is that many of the people who posted have left the boards after a year or so. It seems unfair to tear apart someone’s argument, if they are no longer here to read or respond. These are usually not issues in CoCC or CoSR.
I don’t know enough about vBulletin, but maybe the vB cron I mentioned above can be easily modified to lock only threads in the restricted forums, like IMHO, GD and the Pit.