eddie at July 14th, 2006 14:37 — #1
I'm not sure if the forum software supports this, but would it be worthwhile ni having an 'auto-close thread' after X months pass where the OP hasn't responded?
I was reading the "porting a C# engine over to C++" topic, and people are responding to the OP who (I believe) hasn't responded since January. Kind of like beating a dead horse, no?
I figure that if your post can only 'tag on' to an old thread (that hasn't had movement in a long time) and can't stand to be a new thread on it's own, you're not really adding anything to the conversation.
Anyways, not sure if it's feasible with this board, but just curious what people's thoughts are on the subject.
dega512 at July 14th, 2006 14:46 — #2
I like the idea of keeping old threads around. Just because they are old it doesn't mean that a person who reads it can't learn from it.
monjardin at July 14th, 2006 14:50 — #3
He means to stop new replies to old post, not to delete them outright.
Edit: To make this post more useful, I supose I should reply to the OP. It bothers me sometimes, but it usually has to do with a certain ancient prolog topic.
dega512 at July 14th, 2006 15:01 — #4
I still think they should be kept open. Who knows, maybe someone down the road will find a faster better solution to a problem and respond on that thread.
However the read only idea isn't that bad. I think it would be a great idea if the threads did have a 'reactivate' button just in case someone had something important to say, which would push the thread to the top of the list, mark it as new and allow that person to make their reply thus hopefully reviving the discussion.
monjardin at July 14th, 2006 15:03 — #5
If it is that important then it should stand on its own. Summarize the issue and make a new post. Otherwise, you force people to reread dozens of old post to figure out what the hell the new guy is talking about.
dega512 at July 14th, 2006 15:22 — #6
What if the 'reactivate' button just took the post that started the thread and your reply and makes a new thread?
eddie at July 14th, 2006 16:10 — #7
dega512: You can do that already by copy-pasting what you want, and making a link to the other forum post.
Even better, you can be more choosy about what you're quoting.
I just hate seeing dozens and dozens of pages on threads that the OP already doesn't care about. If your post has enough legs to start a new thread, it'll get more eyes that way.
( ... What a weird anatomy.... legs and eyes.)
dega512 at July 14th, 2006 16:21 — #8
You can do that already by copy-pasting what you want, and making a link to the other forum post.
Ha wow, I can't believe I didn't think of that :lol: .
So back to the original post, doesn't the software allow modifications/plugins?
Also how about the "auto clean up" also unsuscribes you from that thread...
baldurk at July 14th, 2006 16:21 — #9
I've been definite in my anti-necromancy stance for some years now, since it started happening. It's not a cardinal sin, nor is it the most disruptive habit, but I think it's annoying enough.
There has been a rule against it for a while now. The theory is that if you really need to continue a discussion from 6 months ago or more, you should summarise and continue the discussion in a new topic. We're coders for the most part right? whatever happened to modularity? .
I did close a few threads that were resurrected, but it seemed rather counter-productive as the damage (if you can call it that) was done by the time I closed the post.
So, I guess I think auto-closing of posts after a suitable time would be useful.