Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Person Man · Jul 17, 2008, 06:48 PM

I've noticed that sometimes new users will register and then post a reply to a thread that is years old answering the original poster's question long after it was asked, as if they found the question on a Google search, thought "aha! I know the answer," come and register and reply to the thread, and then bam, we got a thread from 2001 dredged up and a reply from a totally new person who didn't bother to notice that the original question is 7 years old.

Or you get a new person bringing up a thread from 2003 and adding "I have the same problem."

The only way I can think of a new person getting to such old threads is via a search engine outside of the Forums' search feature.

Is there a way that the forum software could be set up such that when a person tries to post in a thread in which the last reply was older than 6 months that a dialog box pops up saying something like "You are trying to post in a thread that is x months (or years) old. We prefer that people start a new thread rather than adding to a thread older than 6 months. Do you really wish to add a post to this thread?" with options like "Go ahead and post anyway," and "Start a new thread."

This would do nothing for the spammers, but it might cut down on the honest mistakes.

What do people think?

seanc · Jul 17, 2008, 07:03 PM

I've brought this subject up a couple of times in the past but a good solution hasn't really been discovered yet.
Ideally, we'd lock threads older than 6 months or move them to the archive so that they could be read but not replied to.
The new version of vB may have introduced a new feature to help with this issue, so we'll see what happens.

imitchellg5 · Jul 17, 2008, 10:42 PM

Ban them as soon as they do it? That'd open eyes.

turtle777 · Jul 17, 2008, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Ban them as soon as they do it? That'd open eyes.

Pff, that's not good enough, they could register again.

There's only one solution: capital punishment

-t

besson3c · Jul 17, 2008, 11:55 PM

You don't need to wait for vB to write this feature, you could do it yourself. It is a simple script, probably no more than a few lines of code, providing the vB DB schema is comprehensible.

Laminar · Jul 18, 2008, 12:18 AM

Nevermind threads, how do we get users to realize a "joke" is old?

Big Mac · Jul 18, 2008, 12:19 AM

They could look at the date of the last post.

besson3c · Jul 18, 2008, 12:58 AM

Yeah, why can't people look at the date of the last post?

Only in Amaraca!

Simon · Jul 18, 2008, 02:59 AM

Report zombie thread posters.

Then mods should delete posts to zombie threads.

Peter · Jul 18, 2008, 06:54 AM

have a prompt when you post saying "this thread is older than x months"

Person Man · Jul 18, 2008, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Peter

have a prompt when you post saying "this thread is older than x months"

Which is exactly what I said in my original post.

Person Man · Jul 18, 2008, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

They could look at the date of the last post.

Originally Posted by besson3c

Yeah, why can't people look at the date of the last post?

Only in Amaraca!

Obviously, that makes too much sense, so people don't bother to do it.

zombie punk · Jul 18, 2008, 01:20 PM

Erm, don't you have a little too much time on your hands? I mean, if the question was not answered, and now is, what's the big deal? Especially given that now, someone searching for the answer will actually get it with less hassle than before. You need to get out more...

turtle777 · Jul 18, 2008, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by zombie punk

Erm, don't you have a little too much time on your hands? ... You need to get out more...

Quite ironic that you registered here just to post that comment

-t

zombie punk · Jul 18, 2008, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Quite ironic that you registered here just to post that comment

-t

I know. I'm a huge fan of all things zombie.

seanc · Jul 18, 2008, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by zombie punk

I know. I'm a huge fan of all things zombie.

So I see.

Having read this thread, you should of course know better than to resurrect an old thread, especially one that's four years old.

I'm hoping this was just a publicity stunt and won't be come a regular occurrence.

zombie punk · Jul 18, 2008, 05:30 PM

Well, it illustrates the ridiculousness of a blanket ban on responding to older threads though, doesn't it?
You are objecting to adding factual information to a question that was not answered? Why?
If someone comes across it through a search engine now, they will have correct info, whereas previously they would not. Please explain why that is a bad thing!

seanc · Jul 18, 2008, 05:44 PM

I don't think you understand the point.

The point is that past 6 months, if the thread hasn't been responded to, then the original posters question has been answered or they don't care about the answer any more.

Most old threads get resurrected by spammers adding comments like 'I have one too!' while trying to sell stocks in the 'Peters Emporium of Extravagant Bicycles in their signature.

In your 'example' you didn't add any useful information. If that issue is fixed in newer versions of iPhoto, no one will be searching for the answer. Another point to add where software is concerned, underlying code and functions have often been completely re-written in the time it takes to dredge up a thread such as that, which means a bug in Leopard similar to one in Panther, may actually be caused by completely different things, confusing the thread completely.

Long threads also add to confusion, they get too long, too many different discussions take place within them and it is hard to extract useful information from them. New threads help to keep the topic on track and concise.

zombie punk · Jul 18, 2008, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by seanc

I don't think you understand the point.

The point is that past 6 months, if the thread hasn't been responded to, then the original posters question has been answered or they don't care about the answer any more.

Yes, if we are only concerned about the OP, not others who find it by searching the web.

Originally Posted by seanc

Most old threads get resurrected by spammers adding comments like 'I have one too!' while trying to sell stocks in the 'Peters Emporium of Extravagant Bicycles in their signature.

It sounds like your complaint is about spammers, not older threads. Your example can happen in new threads just as easily as in old ones.

Originally Posted by seanc

In your 'example' you didn't add any useful information. If that issue is fixed in newer versions of iPhoto, no one will be searching for the answer. Another point to add where software is concerned, underlying code and functions have often been completely re-written in the time it takes to dredge up a thread such as that, which means a bug in Leopard similar to one in Panther, may actually be caused by completely different things, confusing the thread completely.

Perhaps, but even if you are correct, that is a critique of that response, not all threads older than six months. I am quite sure that there are older threads where it is quite appropriate to respond. For example, in the lounge right now there is a thread from some time ago concerning a broken leg - the op is responding to let the thread readers know how his leg is doing several years later.

Originally Posted by seanc

Long threads also add to confusion, they get too long, too many different discussions take place within them and it is hard to extract useful information from them. New threads help to keep the topic on track and concise.

Again, your critique is of long threads, not old threads. There are many recent long threads, and many short ones that are old.

zombie punk · Jul 18, 2008, 05:53 PM

I just received this message, and think that it is better placed in this thread - my question remains, why?
This seems counter-productive and non-sensical. Can we get a rational reason for this paranoia about answering outstanding questions?