Time locks on threads

[Reen_Luin]

I would like to suggest perhaps having a time lock on threads to prevent people from necroing old threads. For example, if the thread has been inactive for a month, then it will lock itself to prevent it from being resurrected by some individual months, or even years later. Take a look at the front page of the SF. There are a few threads that are months and years old that were just necroed right up. (The house items suggestion one is from 05 and didnt have any activity again until today, that is 6 years of it being dead)

I think that this would work for any forum, however if there are some forums where there can be months of space between posting, perhaps disabling that feature in there. (Like petitions, lottos/charity, mini shops) I would suggest it would be able to be unlocked by the original creator if they later need to update or have been absent for a while, but that should be it. I know I have personally had some threads of mine necroed several months after they had died and it was especially annoying since I had already had the issue fixed. It just seems like since I came back from my break there have been a lot of necroed threads here and there and I think this would fix that.

[Bleeding Apocalypse]

I like this idea. If the original poster isn't the one reviving a thread that has been dead for at LEAST three months, it should be automatically locked. If the OP still thinks it's relevant, she/he can bump the thread back up and re-activate it.

[Gundamu]

Bleeding Apocalypse

I like this idea. If the original poster isn't the one reviving a thread that has been dead for at LEAST three months, it should be automatically locked. If the OP still thinks it's relevant, she/he can bump the thread back up and re-activate it.

I'd like this as it's happened to a thread or two of mine before.

[pirhan]

This would be awesome. One of the garden forums I post in has it - you're not able to post in threads over X amount of days.

[CleoSombra]

No thanks. I have a number of threads that I've been holding onto for years, some with dozens and dozens of pages that occasionally don't get bumped for months.


Instead of locking threads against a user's will, why not have a warning that says a thread hasn't been posted on in X months? It can be in big, bright colors at the top of the thread or on the reply page.

[Ariestea]

CleoSombra

Instead of locking threads against a user's will, why not have a warning that says a thread hasn't been posted on in X months? It can be in big, bright colors at the top of the thread or on the reply page.

The thing I've noticed is that many users intentionally dig up old threads and knowingly bump them up to the first page "for fun." (<- his words, not mine.)

[CleoSombra]

Ariestea

CleoSombra

Instead of locking threads against a user's will, why not have a warning that says a thread hasn't been posted on in X months? It can be in big, bright colors at the top of the thread or on the reply page.

The thing I've noticed is that many users intentionally dig up old threads and knowingly bump them up to the first page "for fun." (<- his words, not mine.)

So the rule breaking of some users is a justifiable reason to restrict the freedom of others?

By the way, in an effort to restrict necroing in this way, you'd also be encouraging it. If a thread owner didn't want their thread to be locked, they'd be forced to bump up their thread even if they didn't have something new and valuable to say at the moment.

[Valheita]

CleoSombra

Ariestea

CleoSombra

Instead of locking threads against a user's will, why not have a warning that says a thread hasn't been posted on in X months? It can be in big, bright colors at the top of the thread or on the reply page.

The thing I've noticed is that many users intentionally dig up old threads and knowingly bump them up to the first page "for fun." (<- his words, not mine.)

So the rule breaking of some users is a justifiable reason to restrict the freedom of others?

By the way, in an effort to restrict necroing in this way, you'd also be encouraging it. If a thread owner didn't want their thread to be locked, they'd be forced to bump up their thread even if they didn't have something new and valuable to say at the moment.

Regarding rule breaking.. I should point out that in many of Gaia's forums necro-posting isn't actually against the rules.

The written ones at least.

[Reen_Luin]

CleoSombra

No thanks. I have a number of threads that I've been holding onto for years, some with dozens and dozens of pages that occasionally don't get bumped for months.


Instead of locking threads against a user's will, why not have a warning that says a thread hasn't been posted on in X months? It can be in big, bright colors at the top of the thread or on the reply page.

I dont know if you just saw the title and skimmed through or what, but I already suggested a fix to pretty much every reason you have against it. If the op of the thread wanted it bumped back up they would have the means to do so. If the thread were posted in a forum that doesnt see much action, it would be disabled from time locking or have a longer time limit.

We both know that warning pages DO NOT work as hoped for many users. Hell, we are still seeing people complaining about mispriced items in the MP even though there is this great big warning page with bold red letters telling someone when they mispriced it, but they still fly through it and send it into the MP. Also, I have had people who KNOW they are necroing a thread and do it anyway. I had one thread necroed with "Umm hey, i no dis forum is old, but did u get it fixed cuz i have da same issuez". So a warning page isnt going to do anything for those who knowingly necro threads that are not theirs. So, I am going to have to say no to a warning page.

[CleoSombra]

Valheita

CleoSombra

Ariestea

CleoSombra

Instead of locking threads against a user's will, why not have a warning that says a thread hasn't been posted on in X months? It can be in big, bright colors at the top of the thread or on the reply page.

The thing I've noticed is that many users intentionally dig up old threads and knowingly bump them up to the first page "for fun." (<- his words, not mine.)

So the rule breaking of some users is a justifiable reason to restrict the freedom of others?

By the way, in an effort to restrict necroing in this way, you'd also be encouraging it. If a thread owner didn't want their thread to be locked, they'd be forced to bump up their thread even if they didn't have something new and valuable to say at the moment.

Regarding rule breaking.. I should point out that in many of Gaia's forums necro-posting isn't actually against the rules.

The written ones at least.

Oh, I'm aware of that. Gaia's rules are incredibly vague and apparently. I made this thread (WARNING: BACK IN JULY) about asking for clarification about necros, as I saw threads being locked randomly (i.e, one was locked for necroing when the gap wasn't even three weeks apart. Another was necroed, but posts after it were completely on topic and relevant). Interesting, there are more negative than positive votes. Apparently users don't take too kindly to clarification.

[Ariestea]

Valheita

CleoSombra

Ariestea

CleoSombra

Instead of locking threads against a user's will, why not have a warning that says a thread hasn't been posted on in X months? It can be in big, bright colors at the top of the thread or on the reply page.

The thing I've noticed is that many users intentionally dig up old threads and knowingly bump them up to the first page "for fun." (<- his words, not mine.)

So the rule breaking of some users is a justifiable reason to restrict the freedom of others?

By the way, in an effort to restrict necroing in this way, you'd also be encouraging it. If a thread owner didn't want their thread to be locked, they'd be forced to bump up their thread even if they didn't have something new and valuable to say at the moment.

Regarding rule breaking.. I should point out that in many of Gaia's forums necro-posting isn't actually against the rules.

The written ones at least.

Since in my experience, many people necroing old threads do so to annoy, I feel it would be easier for the mods to unlock the few threads (at the request of the op) that were meant to stay open than it is for them to lock those that were necroed in an attempt to annoy. (Hope that doesn't sound too confusing..)

Taking measures to prevent users from breaking rules/etiquette is not a new concept.

[gum disease]

Hi! Just so you know - I've passed this suggestion on to higher authorities.

[Valheita]

CleoSombra

Oh, I'm aware of that. Gaia's rules are incredibly vague and apparently. I made this thread (WARNING: BACK IN JULY) about asking for clarification about necros, as I saw threads being locked randomly (i.e, one was locked for necroing when the gap wasn't even three weeks apart. Another was necroed, but posts after it were completely on topic and relevant). Interesting, there are more negative than positive votes. Apparently users don't take too kindly to clarification.

I figured you would know, still, best to put it out there right?

Ariestea

Since in my experience, many people necroing old threads do so to annoy, I feel it would be easier for the mods to unlock the few threads (at the request of the op) that were meant to stay open than it is for them to lock those that were necroed in an attempt to annoy. (Hope that doesn't sound too confusing..)

Taking measures to prevent users from breaking rules/etiquette is not a new concept.

Our experiences differ then. Aside from a couple of cases where the user has been going out of their way to raise multiple old threads, most cases of necro-posting that I've seen are simply users that do not realise how old the threads actually are.

[.~[Misty.Muffin]~.]

Perhaps only in certain forums...

In some of my RP's, we my go months and months to a year without posting. That doesn't mean it's dead... one of my friends hasn't posted August... that doesn't mean it's dead. She's having real issues. Another I haven't posted in a month because she had school and left the internet. She came back and we continued. Just today I restarted an old RP, or made the decision to. It would be a pain if they were locked and 'a post' had to unlock them from the creator. We don't want random posts in the RP... i'd rather being able to just pick up from where he left off.

And a month is WAY to little time... a suggestion may still be valid after a month. Two years is different, especially if it's purposely just bumped. But that and what i'm talking about and what you're talking about are different.

So maybe if the time period was extended and only mandatory in some places.

[CleoSombra]

Reen_Luin

CleoSombra

No thanks. I have a number of threads that I've been holding onto for years, some with dozens and dozens of pages that occasionally don't get bumped for months.


Instead of locking threads against a user's will, why not have a warning that says a thread hasn't been posted on in X months? It can be in big, bright colors at the top of the thread or on the reply page.

I dont know if you just saw the title and skimmed through or what, but I already suggested a fix to pretty much every reason you have against it. If the op of the thread wanted it bumped back up they would have the means to do so. If the thread were posted in a forum that doesnt see much action, it would be disabled from time locking or have a longer time limit.

We both know that warning pages DO NOT work as hoped for many users. Hell, we are still seeing people complaining about mispriced items in the MP even though there is this great big warning page with bold red letters telling someone when they mispriced it, but they still fly through it and send it into the MP. Also, I have had people who KNOW they are necroing a thread and do it anyway. I had one thread necroed with "Umm hey, i no dis forum is old, but did u get it fixed cuz i have da same issuez". So a warning page isnt going to do anything for those who knowingly necro threads that are not theirs. So, I am going to have to say no to a warning page.

I read the post, but I must have blanked on the part about the thread owner unlocking the OP (possibly because suggestions relating to thread owner power to lock/delete posts aren't viewed favorably, although I understand that this isn't that).

Personally, my concern has nothing to do with slow-moving forums, unless the GCD, zOMG, and SF are considered slow moving. Sometimes discussion in some of my threads wanes over time, then someone has something to add and the discussion goes on for a few more pages. Sometimes, the post that revives the thread isn't even by me, but someone with something to add to the current discussion (and they can't just simply create a new thread).

Secondly, it puzzles me why people say that warning signs don't work. Surely you can't possibly restrict your definition of a sign "working" to "100% success." That's extremely unrealistic. Just because a warning message doesn't prevent all instances of mispricing an item doesn't mean it doesn't prevent any at all - it may, inf act, prevent tons.

No, it won't do anything for people who knowingly necro threads, but not everybody who necros is doing so intentionally. And if they were, then it goes back to another statement I made - I really don't think it's justifable to restrict user freedom because some people want to stir up relatively minor problems.