Marking questions SOLVED ?

[Strange]

There are threads that ask a straightforward question and get responses that clearly answer the question, often with an acknowledgment to that effect from the OP. 

Should we have a policy for those threads that we mark it as "SOLVED" (in the title) and close it?

The solved tag could help people looking to see if the question has been asked and answered. The point of closing would be to stop further random, and possibly unhelpful, contributions.

Thoughts?

 

[StringJunky]

Yes. It helps to know quickly that one can find an answer.

Edited January 19, 2019 by StringJunky

[Sensei]

Tag in title: yes.

But closing? I don't think so.

Somebody in the future (in just couple days) might have something worth adding.

But, if thread is really old, like month+ no activity, if somebody tries to reply in it, moderator should be informed about it and confirm whether to allow reply or not, to avoid unpleasant resurrections of legacy threads, with little value added (usually by newbie member of forum, who does not know netiquette).

 

[Phi for All]

13 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Somebody in the future (in just couple days) might have something worth adding.

Most of the time it might take us a day or two anyway to get around to threads like these that are solved.

14 minutes ago, Sensei said:

But, if thread is really old, like month+ no activity, if somebody tries to reply in it, moderator should be informed about it and confirm whether to allow reply or not, to avoid unpleasant resurrections of legacy threads, with little value added (usually by newbie member of forum, who does not know netiquette).

And this is what happens in the vast majority of these situations. That's why I think they should be closed when they're marked [SOLVED] in the title. We're archiving the solution to that OP. We don't stop people from opening threads on similar subjects. If they're almost exactly alike, we usually merge them.

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Sensei said:

Somebody in the future (in just couple days) might have something worth adding.

If they have something useful to contribute, they could request that the thread is re-opened (temporarily) so they can add to it. The mods might decide that makes sense, or that the response deserves a thread of its own.

[QuantumT]

4 hours ago, Sensei said:

Tag in title: yes.

But closing? I don't think so.

I second that 

[Sensei]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

If they have something useful to contribute, they could request that the thread is re-opened (temporarily) so they can add to it. The mods might decide that makes sense, or that the response deserves a thread of its own. 

Seriously, if newbie, with unknown reputation, with unknown knowledge, would request reopening of some legacy thread, it would be dismissed straight away..

 

[StringJunky]

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

If they have something useful to contribute, they could request that the thread is re-opened (temporarily) so they can add to it. The mods might decide that makes sense, or that the response deserves a thread of its own.

Faced with a solved, closed thread that wanted bring up, I would open a new thread. This idea is actually implemented on sites like StackExchange. They also close saying: This thread has been closed to further replies because it has attracted low quality answers. This is what usually happens when a thread has been archived after a time; people come in later and introduce off-tangent, irrelevant stuff. If a reasonable time limit after the last comment could be introduced where it is then closed, that would stymie spammers.

Edited January 19, 2019 by StringJunky

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Seriously, if newbie, with unknown reputation, with unknown knowledge, would request reopening of some legacy thread, it would be dismissed straight away..

Not at all. If they had a good point to make that added value to the previous information, why would it be dismissed?

But, as Phi said, they can always start a new thread (with a link to the original) with the information. 

[iNow]

I’d err in favor of leaving it open. Too much friction in process to report and request it be reopened merelyto add a slight update or new detail

[zapatos]

I like the idea of SOLVED but I'm not sure closing the thread is helpful. Short of a thread asking for a formula or how to solve for 'x', it seems to me that most threads can benefit from additional posts. Someone might see it from a different perspective, adds some color, or wish to debate a fine point used in the thread. I understand what you are after and applaud it, but maybe not closing a thread for some number of months might work.

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’d err in favor of leaving it open. Too much friction in process to report and request it be reopened merelyto add a slight update or new detail

I'd just add to the closed-thread notice that one is free to open a new thread on the topic.

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I like the idea of SOLVED but I'm not sure closing the thread is helpful. Short of a thread asking for a formula or how to solve for 'x', it seems to me that most threads can benefit from additional posts. Someone might see it from a different perspective, adds some color, or wish to debate a fine point used in the thread. I understand what you are after and applaud it, but maybe not closing a thread for some number of months might work.

Yeah, the time limit wants be where one would generally consider that it has reached ''zombie'' status.

Edited January 19, 2019 by StringJunky

[beecee]

27 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I'd just add to the closed-thread notice that one is free to open a new thread on the topic.

Marking a thread as "Solved" is certainly helpful, but in many situations, some newbie or even oldie, still maybe confused or have some issue re some aspect of a solved answer. So yes, marked "solved" but without closing at least within a certain time limit....say 6 months?

Quote

 Yeah, the time limit wants be where one would generally consider that it has reached ''zombie'' status.

Bingo! We have seen some threads resurrected after being dead for literally years. 

[Sensei]

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

And this is what happens in the vast majority of these situations. That's why I think they should be closed when they're marked [SOLVED] in the title. We're archiving the solution to that OP. We don't stop people from opening threads on similar subjects. If they're almost exactly alike, we usually merge them.

You're talking about different situation. Threads are merged only if the same member of forum made two or more threads about the same subject. (Merging threads started by two distinct members of forum?)

I was talking about situation when newbie member of forum made posts in old legacy thread, made by completely different person, who might not be with us anymore.

If somebody tries to write in old (but not closed) thread, message which would be normally sent to thread, should go to mod, for review whether it contains novelty in thread. Whether it is valuable content. That's not possible to be done automatically. Requiring writing to mod to reopen old thread, that's crazy TBH, newbie has not idea who are mods, and doesn't know about he/she must write post to reopen etc. etc.

 

[Strange]

15 hours ago, Sensei said:

You're talking about different situation. Threads are merged only if the same member of forum made two or more threads about the same subject. (Merging threads started by two distinct members of forum?)

That is the most common reason, but not the only one. We do occasionally get two threads on the same subject that then get merged. Or part of one thread might be split off and merged with another.

[iNow]

What is the problem you’re trying to solve by locking the threads, and how common / hard to deal with is it? 

Closing the thread strikes many of us excessive and unneeded. Want to see if I’m missing something and should update my stance. 

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

What is the problem you’re trying to solve by locking the threads, and how common / hard to deal with is it? 

Closing the thread strikes many of us excessive and unneeded. Want to see if I’m missing something and should update my stance. 

The potential problem is that people come along and just post more discussion. Even if on topic, it might find it hard for people to find the actual answer. Imagine it is an interesting question and there are a couple of good answers on the first page. Over time, because it is interesting, other people chip in with other opinions, other related (or unrelated) questions, etc. etc. You know, the usual discussion. Then someone comes along and sees "SOLVED" and thinks, "great, I can find the answer to this question". They look at page 20, then 19, then 18, then ... and give up before getting to the answer. (They obviously start at the end, because they expect the answer to be one of the last posts.

I don't see how it can be considered "excessive". If there is a question and it has a good answer (and the person posing the question explicitly says, "thanks that's exactly what I was looking for. You could close this now.") then what is the problem with closing it?

You want to ask a similar question? You want to ask the same question again (maybe you weren't happy with the previous answers or you didn't see the thread). Go ahead.

[Externet]

Who will judge it was properly answered and not the one that will show up in a month ?

If marked 'solved' , should not close the thread.  Enough resurrected threads and opinions are found in old subjects.  And that is what 'search the forum' is about.  Learning/evaluating/polishing past answers.

Marking as solved, closing, reopening, temporary, locking... that is adding more workload to moderators.  Leave as is.

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

What is the problem you’re trying to solve by locking the threads, and how common / hard to deal with is it? 

Closing the thread strikes many of us excessive and unneeded. Want to see if I’m missing something and should update my stance. 

As zapatos points out, most threads benefit from different perspectives applied to an explanation, and the discussions are better with more input. When a thread asks a question and gets a definitive answer we can mark [YES!], [NO!], or [SOLVED], it's not only a flag for students looking for solid answers, it can be a magnet for crackpots/deniers. These folks reply to these marked threads with pet theories that blatantly show they haven't read our [SOLVED] thread at all, and I can't see how those posts add to a discussion we consider [SOLVED]. These posts are usually split off to their own threads, so closure saves some housekeeping.

Closing threads should only seem excessive if done far too early, or if a staff member was abusing member/mod status, or if there were more than one reasonable explanation to consider. If the OP asks and is answered and considers the question solved, would you still consider it excessive to mark it that way and close it? 

If someone is refuting the explanations offered in a mainstream thread, especially one marked [SOLVED], whether they're right or wrong, they're most likely off-topic for that thread if they have a different explanation. They should be opening their own thread (and if they support it very well, we'll mark that one too). 

If we left the marked ones open, I suppose people could reply with insights on how the answer helped them understand the problem. In anticipating the kind of reply to an open thread marked [SOLVED], am I missing  something else beneficial? 

[iNow]

I have no struggle marking them solved. Like others, I’d just rather they remain open upon doing so. 

It’s not a big deal either way. I’m only commenting because our feedback was requested. That’s my feedback.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

I have no struggle marking them solved. Like others, I’d just rather they remain open upon doing so. 

It’s not a big deal either way. I’m only commenting because our feedback was requested. That’s my feedback.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound as if I was dismissing your opinion. (But you are wrong  )

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Sorry, didn't mean to sound as if I was dismissing your opinion. (But you are wrong  )

Lol. If this is what it feels like to be wrong, then I don’t wanna be right 

[Phi for All]

I think the obvious compromise here is to start marking some threads but leave them open. If they attract bad actors, or other negative aspect arises because they're still open, we can close them as necessary. 

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think the obvious compromise here is to start marking some threads but leave them open. If they attract bad actors, or other negative aspect arises because they're still open, we can close them as necessary. 

Excellent suggestion.

I have just modified the title of the thread that prompted me to start this discussion: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117764-how-hall-effect-magnetic-sensors-works/ (but left it open).

(Maybe I should now mark this thread as SOLVED!)