|
Closing old threads
I am wondering why FT doesn't automatically close threads to new postings after a certain period of time? I see Moderators admonish posters if they resurrect a thread that has been dormant as information may no longer be current, or is not relevant to current events. They subsequently close the thread themselves.
In some of the other boards I have frequented in the past, the threads were closed to new postings after a year if there were no new posts to that thread. This would save the moderators some time in policing this issue as well as keeping things current. A poster could always add a link back to the original closed thread if they needed to reference it. Just inquiring.... |
Technically it is certainly feasible, but as this is more of a policy decision we will move it to The Suggestion Box forum for the Community Director’s attention.
Thank you. JDiver and cblaisd, Co-Moderators |
there are practically zero positive reasons to do this, and many reasons NOT to do it
moderators can simply look at a bumped thread and decide whether they want to lock it, i dont recall seeing any moderators here saying they lock every single bumped thread over a certain age not all forums (on FT) are the same |
Originally Posted by Kagehitokiri
(Post 30285759)
there are practically zero positive reasons to do this, and many reasons NOT to do it
moderators can simply look at a bumped thread and decide whether they want to lock it, i dont recall seeing any moderators here saying they lock every single bumped thread over a certain age not all forums (on FT) are the same Some time ago the Rules discussed bumping up old threads. Perhaps as a result, a number of members disfavor bumping up older threads, but the Rules do not prohibit it. (Most active posters probably do not bump up old threads in any case.) If the thread is still current and contains accurate information, if the post adds value or if a question is asked that the thread and / or Wikipost address currently, and continuity is maintained rather than disrupted, there’s no reason not to allow an older thread to remain open and accept newer posts. When an old thread that’s not germane, accurate or contains outdated information is bumped, the responsible Moderator will generally close the thread with a closing note and link to a new thread the bumping post has been moved to. Obsolete threads are often handled similarly and archived. |
The somewhat simple solution would be to move old threads to an Archive folder in the database. Configure normal searches to search the "Current" threads. Give folks the ability to choose to search Archive if they like. This would force people to choose to go looking for old threads to dredge up and eliminate the vast majority of the non-relevant resurfacing of threads.
|
merging (whatever is merged) for example is entirely different from closing
xooz, that is a whole lot of information 'loss' and complexity, not to mention "forcing" etc 'spam' ish posts are a separate issue even though it can overlap many other areas such as this and are most likely most commonly not bumps when by new posters
Originally Posted by JDiver
(Post 30286286)
Most active posters probably do not bump up old threads in any case.)
did the past rules give a specific date? are there any blanket forum-wide policies on FT? mods have a lot of discretion |
Originally Posted by Kagehitokiri
(Post 30286969)
merging (whatever is merged) for example is entirely different from closing
xooz, that is a whole lot of information 'loss' and complexity, not to mention "forcing" etc 'spam' ish posts are a separate issue even though it can overlap many other areas such as this and are most likely most commonly not bumps when by new posters ever, for any reason? this is the problem with coded 100% of the time procedures. did the past rules give a specific date? are there any blanket forum-wide policies on FT? mods have a lot of discretion The Rules (blanket forum-wide policies on FT) can be read here; there is no mention or restriction about bumping up older threads. Iirc years ago two years may have been in the obsolete Rules. I have mentioned the Best Practices Mods are encouraged to follow. |
Thank you for posting the topic. I had a robust conversation with the mods about it. The consensus is to not implement it. TripAdvisor is given as the prime example of where threads are closed at a specific time. Folks find it unwelcoming to find a thread that is right on target but has been closed due to lack of responses. Mods agree they would rather that an old thread be bumped than have this happen. They then have the opportunity to decide whether to leave the thread as is, split the new post off into a new thread, or move it to a newer thread where a similar conversation is occurring This seems more welcoming of members.
SanDiego1K Community Director |
Originally Posted by SanDiego1K
(Post 30288275)
I had a robust conversation with the mods about it. The consensus is to not implement it. TripAdvisor is given as the prime example of where threads are closed at a specific time. Folks find it unwelcoming to find a thread that is right on target but has been closed due to lack of responses. Mods agree they would rather that an old thread be bumped than have this happen. They then have the opportunity to decide whether to leave the thread as is, split the new post off into a new thread, or move it to a newer thread where a similar conversation is occurring This seems more welcoming of members.
admirable many mods are more concerned with welcoming members than trying to code reductions in workload also always great to have regular discussions |
I see a problem with the assumption that old threads have no current relevance or value. For example, there's a thread on parking that I started 11 years ago that keeps popping up in the Disability forum because the info is still relevant and the links accurate. Periodically someone asks a new question and updates, if needed, are made. That thread contains valuable info for a specialized situation, and deleting it would take away info collected by that community that is hard to find elsewhere.
If a resurrected thread is no longer accurate or useful, lock it. But don't assume every old thread is worthless. |
Originally Posted by SanDiego1K
(Post 30288275)
Thank you for posting the topic. I had a robust conversation with the mods about it. The consensus is to not implement it. TripAdvisor is given as the prime example of where threads are closed at a specific time. Folks find it unwelcoming to find a thread that is right on target but has been closed due to lack of responses. Mods agree they would rather that an old thread be bumped than have this happen. They then have the opportunity to decide whether to leave the thread as is, split the new post off into a new thread, or move it to a newer thread where a similar conversation is occurring This seems more welcoming of members.
SanDiego1K Community Director The policy decision at this time, posted above by the Community Director, is continuing with current FT policy and Moderator best practices and not automatically lock or close threads solely based on the age of the thread. The purpose of this thread has been fulfilled, so it will now be closed. JDiver & cblaisd, Co-Moderators |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:05 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.