|
|
Way of getting users to realize a thread is old?
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status:
Offline
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ban them as soon as they do it? That'd open eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
|
|
Nevermind threads, how do we get users to realize a "joke" is old?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
They could look at the date of the last post.
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yeah, why can't people look at the date of the last post?
Only in Amaraca!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
Report zombie thread posters.
Then mods should delete posts to zombie threads.
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: England | San Francisco
Status:
Offline
|
|
have a prompt when you post saying "this thread is older than x months"
|
we don't have time to stop for gas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by zombie punk
Yes, if we are only concerned about the OP, not others who find it by searching the web.
We are concerned about the OP, it's their thread. Members are encouraged to start their own thread unless there is already an active one (less than 6 months old) on the topic.
Originally Posted by zombie punk
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.
Spammers are the worst, because an old thread pops up, someone thinks it's new, goes 'ooh I know the answer' only to then check the date and realise that it's not relevant.
Originally Posted by zombie punk
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.
*Sometimes* there are exceptions to the rules, however these threads are usually stickied if they have value.
Usually it's best to start your own thread and link back to the old one to get fresh information on the topic.
Originally Posted by zombie punk
Again, your critique is of long threads, not old threads. There are many recent long threads, and many short ones that are old.
The OPs last response to the post was on Nov 3, 2006, 04:45 PM . The thread was resurrected by a new member.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by seanc
We are concerned about the OP, it's their thread. Members are encouraged to start their own thread unless there is already an active one (less than 6 months old) on the topic.
Which leads to duplications of posts. If the question of the old post is the same as the new one, what possible value is there in duplicating them?
Originally Posted by seanc
Spammers are the worst, because an old thread pops up, someone thinks it's new, goes 'ooh I know the answer' only to then check the date and realise that it's not relevant.
But again, I don't know why you think old threads are more vulnerable to this than new ones - exactly the same thing can happen in new threads.
Originally Posted by seanc
*Sometimes* there are exceptions to the rules, however these threads are usually stickied if they have value.
Indeed.
Originally Posted by seanc
Usually it's best to start your own thread and link back to the old one to get fresh information on the topic.
I still have not heard a logical reason for why you think this.
Originally Posted by seanc
The OPs last response to the post was on Nov 3, 2006, 04:45 PM . The thread was resurrected by a new member.
Indeed, but the new member was asking the OP how his leg was. Interesting information arose because of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
Bumping threads older than 6 months is against the forum rules. These are directed more at current members than random google searches - few people want to read a thread, then craft urgent or sympathetic replies to a matter that expired long ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by reader50
Bumping threads older than 6 months is against the forum rules. These are directed more at current members than random google searches - few people want to read a thread, then craft urgent or sympathetic replies to a matter that expired long ago.
I understand that it is against the rules, I am asking whether there is a logical reason why it is against the rules - it seems silly and counterproductive to the purpose of the board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Far above Cayuga's waters.
Status:
Offline
|
|
can you toss an opaque (like 20%) red layer over posts over 6 months old or something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by imitchellg5
Quiet besson.
I assume you are mistaking this zombie guy for me?
That's awesome...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm just a little baffled that everyone is so excited about older threads, but no one can explain why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by d4nth3m4n
can you toss an opaque (like 20%) red layer over posts over 6 months old or something?
That's an interesting idea, I may play around with it.
In the meantime, I've hacked in an oldthread check, to block bumping of threads over a year old. That way, the Mods in particular forums can waive the 6-month rule by up to another 6 months. And I've excepted a few forums from the check, such as Feedback.
Let's see how this works.
Note: if there really is a reason to bump an old thread, ask a local Mod to initially bump it. That will make the thread current again, allowing replies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Just lock threads after 1 month or so of inactivity. If people have something new, they can create a new thread and link to the old one.
Or do it after 3 months of inactivity if 1 is too soon.
|
This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
Never mind how it works - does no one else want to know why? I mean, what is the point in all this? To prevent people from getting answers to questions they posted in January? Boy, that's worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
zombie punk: some people have a very odd and picky desire for a certain kind of orderliness, or something... To me, it's all about context. Responding to a thread to post spam is a much different thing than responding to a thread to try to a useful answer to a problem for posterity's sake (and for Google to index). Unfortunately, people around here want to try to do the impossible in perfecting rules that can't be perfected so that rules can be enforced in a fair and equal manner, rather than just playing each incident by ear.
All of this trying to tweak the rules just creates an endless loop of these sorts of periodic threads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status:
Offline
|
|
I can see leaving threads in longer on the technical forum threads as there are often times people are searching for an answer and bump a thread in order to solicit new and updated threads. Other forums, such as lounge and poli forum seem to have a shorter shelf life and therefore don't need bumps.
|
This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by zombie punk
Never mind how it works - does no one else want to know why? I mean, what is the point in all this?
Several mods have pointed out to you why we have this rule. It appears you simply don't agree. That however does not mean they haven't explained it. How about you give it a rest? You agreed to those rules when you signed up. So stick to them or leave. It's really quite simple.
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Simon
Several mods have pointed out to you why we have this rule. It appears you simply don't agree. That however does not mean they haven't explained it. How about you give it a rest? You agreed to those rules when you signed up. So stick to them or leave. It's really quite simple.
Several mods have made entirely logic-free explanations, citing things like spam, which is not a problem unique to threads six months old. If the answer is 'because some mods are anal about this particular issue, no other reason, so shut up', that's fine, but you are the first person to express it in those terms. Why is pressing for a logical explanation something that would upset people?
(
Last edited by zombie punk; Jul 20, 2008 at 01:00 AM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
zombie punk: some people have a very odd and picky desire for a certain kind of orderliness, or something... To me, it's all about context. Responding to a thread to post spam is a much different thing than responding to a thread to try to a useful answer to a problem for posterity's sake (and for Google to index). Unfortunately, people around here want to try to do the impossible in perfecting rules that can't be perfected so that rules can be enforced in a fair and equal manner, rather than just playing each incident by ear.
All of this trying to tweak the rules just creates an endless loop of these sorts of periodic threads.
Thanks - that seems like the most plausible explanation for all the excitement over this non-issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
I think it's time that the hard rule about locking zombie-bumped threads gets abolished.
The mods should feel free to lock a bump that doesn't make sense or is spam.
HOWEVER, there are perfectly fine bumps, too, and those should be allowed.
E.g., discussing a movie. I don't see the point of not allowing people after 6 months to add what they think about the movie if they saw it much later than teh thread was created. To force people to start a new thread is ridiculously stupid.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status:
Offline
|
|
If the topic is singular or the problem obscure, I tend to let them stay open. I think mods have the discretion you mention, turtle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Cold Warrior
If the topic is singular or the problem obscure, I tend to let them stay open. I think mods have the discretion you mention, turtle.
Some might have it, but don't know about it, or are not sensitive about it.
I have seen my fair share of unnecessary locks.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
To force people to start a new thread is ridiculously stupid.
QFTW.
Stop obsessing over stupid things. Get out more!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
See, a rule that is broken at various times at the discretion of the mods is hardly worth having, no?
I've never seen a thread about "this needs to be a rule", but rather people trying to pick apart existing rules as the context of the situation illuminates on the weaknesses of the rule. Again, the rules will never be perfect, maybe it would be better to start calling them guidelines, and encouraging members to stop obsessing over them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|