SUGGESTION: Automatically lock dormant threads

[#1]

---

@Mav wrote:

I am still of the opinion that such posts can be reported and then action taken.

---

In the end that does seem the easiest and most sensible way.

And you would know I guess.

I suppose everyone is trying to think of a way to take pressure off the mods but that doesn't appear to be easily possible if at all.

[#2]

I think if I were a mod, unlocking old threads should be the exception and not the norm.

You think of how things change quickly, hardware, PC's, routers, fibre etc. You name it.

The problem is many people are not as IT literate or savvy as many of us on here (no I don't mean to be patronising, but telling the truth). So it is easy for someone to pick up a thread from say 5 years ago, thinking it is recent (say you don't check the date from the original post, just the last one).

I don't know how feasible it is for Lithium to nag you and say "This is an old post, please be aware the information provided may be out of date", based on the OP date.

Looks like it can, from seeing the previous posts. Not sure if the info can be customised via an admin setting.

[#3]

---

Alex wrote:

I don't know how feasible it is for Lithium to nag you and say "This is an old post, please be aware the information provided may be out of date", based on the OP date.

---

It does - but the big warning banner it displays is automatically scrolled off the top of the screen so as much use as a chocolate fireguard!

[#4]

@jaread83,

Thinking about that characteristic how easy would it be to change the CSS to float that warning so that it does not scroll with the page?

[#5]

Looking at the page it scrolls to the subject. If it is specifically that and not just that is where it happens to be, could the warning be moved to below the subject?

Also, for the lazy, there needs to be a link or button in the waning block to start a new subject.

Before we start to get in to complications about who should we allow to reply to old subjects, automatically locking them etc., shouldn't we wait to see how much of a problem it is after the obvious bug (the warning not being visible) is fixed?

[#6]

That's a sensible suggestion jelv, although I'll admit, I'm not that familiar with the message, as I'm not in the habit of posting to old threads. Must take a look.

[#7]

That is a system I would prefer, where you can post to old threads, but get a warning (that is obvious in your face, you are doing so).

I'm sure the mods are used to this but you get:

User x raises a problem years ago.
Many posts are made back then.
User y adds a recent post.
I (for example) reply.
Post is x pages long, and often people won't bother to read page 1, just the last one.
People then think it is a recent post as they generally only look at the last few ones and not check page 1.

[#8]

@jelv,

The practical issue here is ‘where’ dies the change need to be implemented?

If is core functionality then it’s lithium themselves and we know how long they take to resolve issues AFTER convincing THEM that it’s a bug.

If it can be fixed by cosmetic surgery within the skin, then there is a chance Jack can enhance it.

It’s not clear to me if the scroll / focus on the reply text box, actually the 3rd object in the form (which is why those of us using macros see the macro drop down holding focus), is done by the skin or the core code. Certainly Jack has control of the CSS ... but that might create other problems.

[#9]

That's a good point @Townman.

I would prefer threads not to be automatically locked, but the warning to be made clearer.

Development wise, whether it be PlusNet or Lithium I don't know how much of a task it would be.

I think it is better to spend time on that, than auto locking threads.

[#10]

I observed that the mods were promptly dealing with Lazarus activity this morning ... I saw a resurrection topic and before I could click the report to mods option ... it had gone!!

I supposed dealing with the consequences of not locking stale topics keeps them out of mischief elsewhere!  

[#11]

To address the issue with the warning message on old threads I recently added a fix to the replypage template that would scroll to the warning message if it exists (currently on staging). That should help deter some from posting in old threads.

There seems to be a lot of pros and cons from locking old threads, sometimes the information is out dated... whereas on the other hand some threads are still relevant. Maybe it would be safe to assume that if there is any threads that still have activity.. they would not fall into the autolock after X months/years category? I am all for the freedom of choice here, I'd rather that you all could post on whatever topic you wanted and it would be welcome (especially from the established members) rather than the me-too's that should have just been posted as a new topic to talk about a members particular needs rather than be lost in the discussion that went on years ago.

What if having the autolock applied also meant that the message at the top of the topic explaining this ALSO had a link to report a thread to request it to be unlocked so further discussion can go ahead? When a mod unlocks the thread, the leave a note stating the action and then the thread no longer falls into the auto lock rules?

[#12]

Jack,

As ever a well thought through pragmatic compromise.

[#13]

Well, this is your community afterall and if I make any changes they need to be well thought out and fleshed out enough to go ahead without impacting your normal, everyday use.

When these old threads are brought up from the dead, 9 times out of 10 its a new user with a similar problem and they had found the thread by searching via Google or the subject box when composing a new topic. Its very rare that anything worthwhile is posted to these old threads... especially ones that are over 2 years old (thats the kind of timeframe I have in mind).

I am open to suggestions on how long it should be till a topic falls into the criteria of not needing any more replies as its officially dead... I do think 2 years is plenty.. 6 months to a year may be too short though...

Edit: I should also add that spammers tend to post in old threads, hoping that it wont bump the topic to the top of the list. They aren't the brightest really. You may not notice this as much as the mods deal with those users quite quickly.

[#14]

Jack,

If the measure of "stale" is "time since last touched" then I think 9 months would be reasonable.  Most technical issues will have markedly moved on within 4-6 months, so making it 9 months ought to be OK for the majority of considerations.  As suggested, if there is a real need to resurrect anything older than 9 months, then we can ask the mods.

BTW I had not intended to suggest that your solutions were ever anything but well thought through - rather that (particularly here) given all of the for and against discussion, the proposal on the table addresses both the needs and concerns expressed in one tidy solution.

[#15]

I'd assumed that the criteria for locking would be based on time since last reply. If it was on time since topic opened you run in to real trouble:

• user tries to post a reply but it gets locked
• moderator unlocks topic to allow reply or merges post from a new topic with the original to keep continuity
• another user tries to reply to new post - it will be immediately locked again!

If it is time since last reply then I'd suggest 6 months is plenty.