Resurrecting old threads fix

[Sensei]

Hello!

 

Many people, especially newbie that just joined forum, are bringing back old threads to front.

f.e. threads with questions made by members that are no longer here anymore for years.

Answering their questions has no sense, as they will never read it.

 

Programmers of this forum can do couple things to prevent it:

 

- if thread has been started f.e. 1 year ago (and/or the last reply to thread was 1 year), show in-line message (<div> HTML tag) immediately after going to such thread reminder that it's old thread.

Red warning with easy to spot size f.e. 100px+ height, whole width of screen.

 

- if somebody will try to reply in such thread show requester asking for confirmation (and instruction why requester is showing up) (JavaScript confirm() function can be used)

http://www.w3schools.com/js/tryit.asp?filename=tryjs_confirm

(See link, if you want to see how JS confirm() works)

 

- if somebody will try to reply in such thread alert moderator, which can accept resurrection of old thread, or reject it. Reply will be delayed until mod accepts it.

 

Best Regards!

 

[John Cuthber]

Imagine that Fermat posed a question here in 1637 about the generality of the existence of valid solutions to the equation

X^n = Y^n +Z^n where X,Y,Z, and n are integers

 

If Andrew Wiles answered it here would "Answering their question" really "has no sense, as they will never read it."?

 

Or is it possible that, even after a while their reply might have been useful, if not to the original poster, but to others?

 

​Though I grant you the people who resurrect a thread just to say "I don't know" are a pain in the butt and your suggestion isn't a bad one, but I'd modify it.

​I think it is probably sufficient to tell the person posting that they are replying to an old thread.

 

Speaking of old threads, are you in a position to reply to this one?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87510-sulfuric-acid-in-ppm/?p=850748

Edited February 7, 2015 by John Cuthber

[MigL]

If Andrew Wiles answered it here with the 300 pages of proof I can guarantee you no-one would ever read all of it.

( just kidding )

 

I agree with sensei and John also. Some indication would be good.

[swansont]

I think it would be simpler to just lock every thread older than some agreed-upon age, e.g. 6 months. I wonder if the forum software can accommodate that.

[John Cuthber]

It is certainly simpler in principle and probably easier to implement.

But it rather implies that progress doesn't happen after 6 months.

 

Someone might come along 7 months later with a really good answer.

[Sensei]

I think it would be simpler to just lock every thread older than some agreed-upon age, e.g. 6 months. I wonder if the forum software can accommodate that.

That would require periodically, say one per day, execution of code to check all database entries for out of date, and then calling lock routine.

I can't see how it's easier to implement than my first idea, which would be f.e.:

 

if( get_article_date( $article ) < ( get_current_date() - ( 6*30*24*60*60 ) )

{

printf( "div class=\"warning\">[warning info]</div>\n" );

}

Basically 2-3 rows of code, added to article displaying function/script.

 

and one row in CSS.

 

Second idea would require adding a bit of JavaScript, to form submit call-back, when "if( get_article_date( $article ) < ( get_current_date() - ( 6*30*24*60*60 ) )" is true.

if( confirm( "[warning info]" ) // submit HTML form

else return( 0 ); // refuse to submit form (user canceled requester).

 

Only 3rd idea is harder to implement (delayed reply).

Edited February 8, 2015 by Sensei

[imatfaal]

I am yet to read a good reason for all this closure. Why not just leave the threads open - what is the problem with necromancy anyway?

[Lightmeow]

I personally think there should just be a message that tells you that the OP may not respond, or that it is an old thread. I think it would be just stupid closing old threads automatically.

[CharonY]

I am yet to read a good reason for all this closure. Why not just leave the threads open - what is the problem with necromancy anyway?

 

Well, for starters a true necromancer is 5 caster lvls behind the rest, has the the disadvantages of wizards as well as clerics, also they have to take death domain as cleric. As such you may just be cleric to begin with.

[StringJunky]

A forum, such as this one operates, on more than one temporal level. To those who frequent it daily or so it's more like a chat site but to casuals its a long-term static resource. I often find myself looking at long-dead conversations in other forums in pursuit of information. We regulars find it annoying because it's 'old', but actually, If it's being necromanced it's a good sign that people still find it useful.

Edited February 9, 2015 by StringJunky

[Spyman]

The Science Forums Etiquette Guide says:

 

III. Posting New Threads

 

 

Use the Search Function

Before you post a thread, use the search function to see if anyone else has posted the same topic. It's better to post in an existing thread than to start a new one.

If we no longer want this behaviour maybe we should change the guide to say something against necromancy instead.

[Unity+]

I think it would be simpler to just lock every thread older than some agreed-upon age, e.g. 6 months. I wonder if the forum software can accommodate that.

There is probably a plugin you can get for IP.Board that will allow you to do so.

 

But I would say closing older threads wouldn't solve anything really. Just keep with the regular rules. If a post to an older thread is made that isn't sufficient to the rules of the forum, then delete it. Why solve a problem that doesn't exist?

[Phi for All]

I personally think there should just be a message that tells you that the OP may not respond, or that it is an old thread.

 

We have that, it's on each post right under your username. Freshness dating!

[swansont]

There is probably a plugin you can get for IP.Board that will allow you to do so.

 

But I would say closing older threads wouldn't solve anything really. Just keep with the regular rules. If a post to an older thread is made that isn't sufficient to the rules of the forum, then delete it. Why solve a problem that doesn't exist?

 

I'm not saying there is a problem, just that if one wanted to implement some protocol that the board software might already allow for it.

[Unity+]

 

I'm not saying there is a problem, just that if one wanted to implement some protocol that the board software might already allow for it.

It was in response to OP. I apologize for not clarifying.

[John Cuthber]

Here's a nice example.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/80536-mercury-element-cube/?p=852313