Digging up

**Mc Brain** · Jul 7th, 2003, 08:01 AM

Normal users should not be able to posts in threads older than a year (http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...21#post1475821) So, the thread should be automatically "closed" when it's an year old. If it's closed and it's indispensable to post on the thread, the user should ask to a moderator or administrator to unblock that thread, the reasons why it should be unblocked. If the moderator thinks it's reasonable he/she would unblock it. If it's not, he/she would deny the request and the user should start a new thread.

**MartinLiss** · Jul 7th, 2003, 09:10 AM

Why?

**Mc Brain** · Jul 7th, 2003, 09:21 AM

Ok, maybe that was not a good example. What about this? http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...threadid=15421

Why should all the users be bothered with a thread that is 3 years old to post something that most probably no-one cares anymore. Come on!! It's 3 years old. If the person is still looking for the answer he would dig it up himself or would open a new thread.

This way, all the users (which, by the way, were too few in the link I posted) won't be bothered at all. I don't mind "being bothered".. but I cannot remember a thread which dates that long. And in most cases I should read the whole thread again to understand what's going on in the thread.

Am I clear? or is it that I'm too crabby these last days?

**MartinLiss** · Jul 7th, 2003, 09:50 AM

OK, I see your point but I don't think it can be done without a hack and management frowns on that. BTW I think your response in that thread was the way to do it.

**Mc Brain** · Jul 7th, 2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by MartinLiss
OK, I see your point but I don't think it can be done without a hack and management frowns on that. BTW I think your response in that thread was the way to do it.

Thanks... I thought it was a little too sarcastic, but that was to make it a little funnier.

**Pirate** · Jul 7th, 2003, 12:07 PM

I agree on the idea but the thread should be closed after couple of months . I don't know how those crazy think ...

**parksie** · Jul 7th, 2003, 12:10 PM

Too much effort really, considering what it gets.

**Mc Brain** · Jul 7th, 2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Pirate
I agree on the idea but the thread should be closed after couple of months . I don't know how those crazy think ...

I've thought of that... but you were faster. Every 1st of month a moderator could perform a query for "older" threads and close them. I know this would be extra work.... so I don't know if anyone is willing to do this.

**fungi** · Jul 7th, 2003, 12:37 PM

Since we're all "supposed" to search for an answer first, it makes perfect sense to sometimes post to a thread that could have a few cobwebs. Did it myself this morning.

But as usual it's all in the context. You get the whacky stuff going on every time there's a full moon...

**MartinLiss** · Jul 7th, 2003, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by fungi
Since we're all "supposed" to search for an answer first, it makes perfect sense to sometimes post to a thread that could have a few cobwebs. Did it myself this morning.

But as usual it's all in the context. You get the whacky stuff going on every time there's a full moon...

...or, as in this case, a noobie who may not realize what he's doing dredges up an oldie.

**Mc Brain** · Jul 7th, 2003, 02:18 PM

Maybe the solution might be to perform a diary query on the database's tables to close the old threads. I think it should only be an UPDATE statement with the proper WHERE clause.

**Mc Brain** · Jul 8th, 2003, 05:22 PM

Web Wiz Guide's forums has a Block older posts script. When the administrator executes this bacth script, all the posts which have not been posted in (since the period you define) become blocked. If any user wants to post in them, they have to ask to re-open the thread.

Probably, a similar script could be perform in these forums.

**The Hobo** · Jul 9th, 2003, 02:36 AM

This is just stupid if you ask me.

If someone comes across an old thread and has a much better solution, why shouldn't they be able to post it? Then when someone searches and finds that thread, they'll have the better solution rather than just the poor one given.

I don't see the point.

**blindlizard** · Jul 10th, 2003, 04:36 AM

How about put the burden back on the user. You have the ability to unsubscribe from threads. Go back and unsubscribe from your old threads, and you won't get new messages

**Mc Brain** · Jul 10th, 2003, 06:03 AM

Because someone should provide a script to do that. Besides, I don't think this would be as nice as the other solution.

**The Hobo** · Jul 10th, 2003, 01:45 PM

Again: why?

**Mc Brain** · Jul 10th, 2003, 01:59 PM

Sorry... I don't want to waste my time arguing. If you can see why it would be better, I don't care. Anyway... it's not up to you (and me either)

**Pirate** · Jul 10th, 2003, 02:05 PM

Again , it's stupid of someone who comes to post better solution in 3-year old thread . Within this time , VB6 would be dead ...lol.

**Mc Brain** · Jul 10th, 2003, 02:15 PM

That's my point!! And even if it's better. Who cares!! I mean, the man who had the problem most probably have solved it already. And I don't think would be willing to change a working code.

**The Hobo** · Jul 10th, 2003, 03:24 PM

But other's searching for a solution may want to know if there's a better one...

**Mc Brain** · Jul 10th, 2003, 03:39 PM

You're not getting the point. If this user wants for a better solution it means that the one that's posted (if there's any) does not solve his/her problem. So, why should you bother dozens of people, probably -all the ones that participated- when he/she could post a new thread and get anwsers only from the people who are willing to answer.

Anyway... we're getting nowhere. I believe threads should be closed. Especailly if they're long. I cannot remember a thread that dates that long and in most cases I should read the whole thread again. All the users in the thread should do it also. Why should this new user bother all of the participants just because he/she wants a better answer? If the thread is not good enough, start a new one. You should get an answer faster for two reasons.

a) If the thread is new (for me) I don't read a thread that has 20+ post because I'm always a bit lazy.
b) If the thread is too old (and I participated), I'm usually not willing to read a whole thread again just to know what's important and what is not.

So, if the thread is new I might read what's going on inside. Get the point? If anyone needs further help I vote to open a new thread. That's my point of view.

**The Hobo** · Jul 10th, 2003, 05:25 PM

It's quite easy to ignore the threads. Who said you have to read through all the posts? If old threads bother you, ignore them. That's a far better solution than devising a script or having someone close all old threads.

I think this best sums up my thoughts...better than any words:

**Pirate** · Jul 10th, 2003, 08:38 PM

This sukx . What if someone searched and found what he was looking for *old & resolved thread *, this time , he won't provide a solution but would ask a silly question . What the **** ?

. Leave the thread alone and start your own thread . I think Mc Brain is definitely right when he asked for closing threads under some circumstances.

**Mc Brain** · Jul 10th, 2003, 08:50 PM

I think the idea is clear. If the user wants to post in a closed thread he/she should ask a moderator. If the moderator thinks it's siutable it would open the thread again so that he/she posts in it. If the moderator thinks he/she should open a new thread... the thread will remain closed.

This way, most of the users'd rather start a new thread without hesitating (unless he/she is completely sure that what he/she has to add is very useful to the thread).

I don't mind if someone has a better solution to provide. But I hate when at the end of a three-page thread there is a stupid question or even worst there's a question regarding the thread. In most cases I don't read the whole thread again just to be able to answer this new question. And I'm sure that 90% of the people involved either. So, the thread is getting even longer (and unreadable) and there's a little chance that someone new (who has not participated) read the whole thread just to answer. That's my point of view. I think that the forums should be useful enough so that newbie don't dig up old thread for everyone's sake. "We" don't get bothered, and they get an answer.

**Pirate** · Jul 10th, 2003, 08:53 PM

I agree 100% .

**Mc Brain** · Jul 10th, 2003, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by The Hobo
It's quite easy to ignore the threads. Who said you have to read through all the posts? If old threads bother you, ignore them. That's a far better solution than devising a script or having someone close all old threads.

I think this best sums up my thoughts...better than any words:

You told it yourself: ignore them. That's probably what most of the people do. So, what's the point of digging up an old thread. The user might think that anyone is going to answer... when it's more probable that no-one reads it. So, why don't the forums FORCE the users to start a new thread instead of tempting them to post in the one they found.

**The Hobo** · Jul 10th, 2003, 10:18 PM

Are you listening to yourself?

Mod: Please do not reply to this thread anymore. It is very doubtful that someone will read it since it has a bunch of replies.

...

IGNORE THEM and move along.

**Mc Brain** · Jul 10th, 2003, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by The Hobo
Are you listening to yourself?

Mod: Please do not reply to this thread anymore. It is very doubtful that someone will read it since it has a bunch of replies.

...

IGNORE THEM and move along.

There's no need of sarcasm. You can use a phrase like "Sorry, you can NOT post a reply. This topic is closed." like good forums do (http://www.webwizguide.com/forum/for...p?TID=358&PN=2)

**The Hobo** · Jul 11th, 2003, 11:40 AM

But if the topic isn't closed (hence why the user posted), the mod would look like an idiot.

Are we going to continue to beat this into the ground?

**Hampster** · Jul 11th, 2003, 04:56 PM

I was googling for a problem I was having with a server, and came across someone with the same problem, on a message board. The post was three months old, and there was several people having the same problem that had posted various information. After I had resolved my problem, I went back to post the answer to the problem. I could not, as the board disallowed you to post to message older than a month. Who knows how many people have had that problem, searched the internet for the answer, and were unable to solve it because the board had that enabled.

The point is, to the user asking the question it may not matter. To the user searching the forum (Which is encouraged here) it does.

Thread: Digging up

Thread Tools

Display

Digging up

Posting Permissions