Archived threads revisited.

[Nick]

A new member just resurrected a 3-year old thread originally about "VB vs EZB" to ask which "chats" were most active, and when. My question is:

"Should old, inactive threads be locked at the time they go into the archives?"

I have followed these reactivations for some time now and have noticed that several things usually have happened:

1. More often than not, it was not the intent of the poster to resurrect a dead thread.

2. The poster is typically a new member, unfamiliar with the unwritten rules (customs) of the board.

3. Inevitably, someone else (like me) will complain.

4. Some users get confused when, for example, a reactivated thread jumps from s/w version 1.01 to v2.99.

I've posted this in Admin in hopes of getting some other opinions. In fact, I think I'll just turn the question into yet another fun poll.

Please participate.

[kwajr]

i agree again nick who hasnt read some post and thought about than noticed the date

[Richard King]

English translation please?

[kwajr]

English translation please?
PERHAPS YOU CAN TRANSLATE THIS KING F**K YOU

[Richard King]

My, how literate of you. Congratulations, that's almost a sentence.

[cdru]

My vote is yes, lock them. After they are lock, if someone wants to post a follow up they can always start a new thread and link back to the locked one. If that isn't acceptable, then maybe a simple warning message after clicking "Submit Reply" that asks "Did you really mean to revive a [time period] old thread?" and asks them again to confirm posting. I believe this is done over at DSLReports and I know I've caught myself a few times before it's too late.

[Neil Derryberry]

PERHAPS YOU CAN TRANSLATE THIS KING F**K YOU

Kwajr.. vacation warning. Grow a sense of humor or you will have some time off in order to do so.

[Redster]

i agree again nick who hasnt read some post and thought about than noticed the date

amazing what a little punctuation would solve.

I agree Nick. Who hasn't read some post and thought about it; then noticed the date.

And I hated English class.

[SimpleSimon]

Yo, Redster :D

I didn't realize that "it" was punctuation. :lol:

I'll leave the then/than issue for Nick. ;)

Just goes to show you how automatic literacy can become. ;)

[JBKing]

PERHAPS YOU CAN TRANSLATE THIS KING F**K YOU

Reopening old threads doesn't bother me that much, but people like this do! :mad:

[Richard King]

Hey, I thought he was making real progress. He even came close to a real sentence. :lol:

[JM Anthony]

Reopening old threads doesn't bother me that much, but people like this do! :mad:
Doesn't bother me either. Kind of like watching a classic TV show.

[Nick]

Interesting perspective, John.

Quick, someone click on The Howdy Doody Show thread. :grin:

[JM Anthony]

In my mind, these "threads" are like fashion trends (get the connection, pretty cool, huh). The wide ties, striped shirts, and bell bottom pants from earlier times are all making a come back. None of that stuff is new. Just think how many "new threads" could be prevented if we read all of the old ones!!! It's practically mind boggling. Ooops! Gotta run. The grass is growing and someone needs to watch it.

[cdru]

So was anything ever decided officially for the site regarding the poll topic? I noticed that there was another thread (http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=6174) that got bumped back up from 2½ years ago.

[cboylan3]

just a quick question. Not arguing, just trying to understand. What's the concern or issue with replying to or activating an archived thread?

thx in advance

[Chris Blount]

There is a way to auto lock old threads after a certain period of time. I will test it this weekend (don't like to hack during the week since it's our busiest time :) ).

[JM Anthony]

just a quick question. Not arguing, just trying to understand. What's the concern or issue with replying to or activating an archived thread?

thx in advance
Don't be too polite or you'll get flamed by the radical right for being a liberal. I see nothing wrong with brining resurrecting old posts. From one perspective, it's an interesting way of seeing how thinking on the site evolves over time.

[SimpleSimon]

The big problem with resurrecting TECHNICAL threads is that the information in them can be obsolete and confusing.

Non-technical threads don't have this problem - witness the resurrected Reagan thread in Potpourri today.

[BobMurdoch]

Sometimes, revisiting an old topic can be enlightening with a fresh persepctive. Sometimes it can be humorous. Ya know, like when E* promises to have screensavers for the XXX receiver by the end of 2003 and we still don't have them today, etc......

[Nick]

Excellent arguments both ways. Now I'm cornfused!!!??? :confused:

:grin:

[Ric]

And don't forget the age old advice - "Search before you post next time" or "this topic was covered in X thread". If they can't respond to the old stuff, then its a double edged sword for newbies.

An old topic can only be resurrected if people respond to the 'resurrector'. Otherwise, it will just die again. I am sure there are many 'guilty' of letting these old threads carry on lately.

[cdru]

But if you need to post a follow up to an old thread, or ask a new question, it doesn't that that much more effort to just say "Continuing on from this thread" and link to it. Yes there are legitimate reasons to resurrect an old thread, but I bet many times its done by accident when someone does a search and replies without checking the date.

I like how DSLReports does it. After a month, you get a "warning" saying that the thread is over a month old and do you really want to post. After 2 months I believe it gets locked and no further posting is allowed.

[Nick]

Yet another example of why I am convinced archived threads should be locked.

Go to the last post...

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=375207#post375207

:shrug:

"When keyboards are outlawed, only idiots will have keyboards."

[SimpleSimon]

Exactly, Nick!

[Chris Blount]

Well, I looked at the possibility of auto-locking old threads. There are a few ways to do it but quite frankly, I don't like any of them. As some of you may know, I'm very conservative about installing hacks on our system. I want to keep the database as clean as possible.

The only way that I feel would be safe to get around this problem is to place all old threads into an archive forum that is closed for posting. We have one setup right now but I stopped dumping posts into the archive forum regularly because I felt it was better to keep the posts in the forums where they originated.

Another option is to create an archive for each forum. For instance, the Dish Network Forum would have a subforum called "Dish Network Forum Archive". The only problem is that this would be a very hands on proposition where someone would have to go in regularly and move threads to the archive.

I personally think that the resurrection of old threads is not a big problem and doesn't really happen that often. When it does, a mod or admin can simply close the thread with a note telling the user to start a new one. No big deal and much easier and safer than hacking the database or creating and maintaining archive forums.

[Nick]

Well, I looked at the possibility of auto-locking old threads. There are a few ways to do it but quite frankly, I don't like any of them...I personally think that the resurrection of old threads is not a big problem and doesn't really happen that often. When it does, a mod or admin can simply close the thread with a note telling the user to start a new one. No big deal and much easier and safer than hacking the database or creating and maintaining archive forums.Thanks for explaining the technical problems of locking old threads, Chris, and I agree that dead thread resurrection doesn't happen all that often, here or in real life for that matter. ;) Henceforth, I shall no longer pursue the matter, but I reserve the right to whine about it from time to time. :)