Auto locking threads

[Andyroo]

Following on the note about old threads and not being able to do it automatically.

If you have any ‘spare’ support time could you point them in the direction of these PHP scripts on the support board?

[DougieLawson]

Is that the same as: https://www.phpbb.com/customise/db/exte ... ck_topics/ which Google found with a simple search?

[Heater]

When someone opens a thread with a question here, that is a communication channel between that someone and the rest of the world.

To close that channel after three months, or whatever, is doing them a great disservice. Cutting them off from the world. What if some kind sole turns up with a solution after 4 months?

Now the initiator will never know, and the responder has no way to notify them.

I just don't see the attraction to this idea.

If nothing is of value then why not keep it simple, delete the entire forum data base at the end of every month and start again?

[W. H. Heydt]

I could support an autotlock of threads six months after the last post.

[DougieLawson]

I could support an autotlock of threads six months after the last post.

It makes sense, lots of stuff goes stale after 6 months. The folks who want to necro that junk can start a new thread and post a "I found this old thread" link. If a thread needs to be re-opened the moderators can do that (and reset the timer by posting a "I've re-opened this old thread" post).

[PeterO]

When someone opens a thread with a question here, that is a communication channel between that someone and the rest of the world.

For a very small value of "rest of the world"....

Lock threads after 3-6 months of inactivity sounds sensible to me. New threads can easily be started if the issue reappears. Better than having people replying to out of date infomation.

PeterO

[Ernst]

Lock threads after 3-6 months of inactivity sounds sensible to me. New threads can easily be started if the issue reappears. Better than having people replying to out of date information.

I fully agree with this.

But it would be nice if moderators would be able to unlock threads on request for the thread starter or a "well known" user,
this would allow threads to be updated with new findings.

[Andyroo]

The ‘lock’ is just a database flag and moderators can unlock any thread - just think of the sticky threads that get updated as and when needed.

[Andyroo]

Is that the same as: https://www.phpbb.com/customise/db/exte ... ck_topics/ which Google found with a simple search?

Similar - the mod is a very good tool and will certainly handle the lock basics - no idea if it runs on this version of the code.

[hippy]

On one hand I can't say I'm in favour of auto-locking threads but will accept that if someone has something relevant to say they can start a new thread with a link to the old one.

The main reason I'd suggest leaving it 'as is' is because I don't see there's much of a problem with not auto-locking threads. I am however open to it being proved otherwise.

When people do necro a thread, it's a red flag that they are very possibly a spammer trying to sneak under the radar, and that's a useful tool to have which will be lost.

Added : I'm wondering if this wasn't the post which triggered this thread ... ?

https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/view ... 7#p1553659

I might be doing a great disservice to first time poster 'thomasx' but, as an admin/mod on other forums, that would have raised a massive red flag for me. To me it is highly indicative of pre-spamming behaviour, a typical means of getting through the 'first post moderation' requirement.

[ejolson]

Is that the same as: https://www.phpbb.com/customise/db/exte ... ck_topics/ which Google found with a simple search?

Similar - the mod is a very good tool and will certainly handle the lock basics - no idea if it runs on this version of the code.

One of the attractions for me of this particular forum is that neither threads nor posts are automatically locked. This policy has allowed the thread

https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/view ... 31&t=44080

to be updated with new information in a coherent way over the last 6 years. In my opinion, this and other long-running threads tell interesting stories that attract readers and are important for building a community around the Raspberry Pi.

While most vendor forums have a narrow focus on products which lose relevance within a year, the present forum includes threads related general computer science which, in part, distinguish the educational mission of the foundation from a typical for-profit computer company.

[Heater]

Exactly.

Continuity, community, valuable things that can easily be broken by an arbitrary rule of other wise no benefit.

[DougieLawson]

The locking would be triggered on six months of inactivity. A long running thread would be left untouched. It's got to be based on last posting date not when the thread was created.

[fruitoftheloom]

The bottom line is it more or less work for the Mods ?

Though if Googlers used custom time / site searches, they would not be offered old results.......

[DougieLawson]

Automatic locking means less moderation plus fewer "#MeToo" resurrections.

It will be easier for everyone. We may get folks posting things with a better problem description.

[Burngate]

Just a counter-example: https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/view ... 91&t=32207

If it had been locked, automatically or otherwise, should hornedfrog have started a new thread?

[Andyroo]

Just a counter-example: https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/view ... 91&t=32207

If it had been locked, automatically or otherwise, should hornedfrog have started a new thread?

Any regular user can hunt up threads to demonstrate either case - that's the nature of this 'industry' where SOME info gets outdated quickly and other bits remain valid (I would have used the Kodi thread as the example). This is unlike other boards where the data is relevant for years e.g. some of the wargaming boards I haunt have rules over 20 years old that still have an active following but the latest sets have zero interest.

Unfortunately, we do not have a good enough AI (all praise our robot overlords) to determine if a thread should be locked or not so we have to take up valuable time of volunteers to stop posts that are irrelevant to the thread as systems have changed.

My main aim of this thread was to provide a tool to solve a problem (as I see it) for the mods who spend some time locking old threads where the post is not relevant due to software changes. The linked post states:

It is only because this forum lacks a mechanism to do this automatically once a thread is beyond a "sell by date" we don't do this per default.

I am a user here not a moderator - it has to be up to the mods to decide if they want to use the tool or not and what settings it has. This may be the wrong tool for them - I do not know how the mods here work / communicate / decide things.

I know some days I read the original post date before opening the thread and can skip helping someone or learning something new if it's a year or so old.

I'm going to ask for this post to be closed as we are just going around the same arguments each time and I do not want it to escalate.

[LTolledo]

The locking would be triggered on six months of inactivity. A long running thread would be left untouched. It's got to be based on last posting date not when the thread was created.

This has my vote as well...

[gordon77]

The locking would be triggered on six months of inactivity. A long running thread would be left untouched. It's got to be based on last posting date not when the thread was created.

This has my vote as well...

How would a " long running thread would be left untouched" be specified?

[PeterO]

The locking would be triggered on six months of inactivity. A long running thread would be left untouched. It's got to be based on last posting date not when the thread was created.

This has my vote as well...

How would a " long running thread would be left untouched" be specified?

They don't need a separate specification.
They would never go for more than six months without new posts being added, so it would never be locked.
PeterO


PeterO

[mahjongg]

request to lock denied. please don't waste my time.

[hippy]

How would a " long running thread would be left untouched" be specified?

They don't need a separate specification.
They would never go for more than six months without new posts being added, so it would never be locked.

Not always true. My own "How to install Visual Studio Code" has been kept updated over a number of years, often with more than six months between updates -

https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/view ... p?t=191342

If it wasn't for noticing posts added to that in my "Your Posts" sections, they were in some other thread linking to it, I might well miss those "why doesn't it work any more?" posts, not even realise the information I had provided in good faith had become out of date, needed investigating or correcting.

[Andyroo]

request to lock denied. please don't waste my time.

Sorry about that

[PeterO]

Not always true. My own "How to install Visual Studio Code" has been kept updated over a number of years, often with more than six months between updates -

https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/view ... p?t=191342

The exception that proves the rule !
PeterO

[Imperf3kt]

For those wondering why we like the notion of locking old threads, please continue reading:

I much prefer my old posts to be locked after I have abandoned them for six months. There are exceptions, but mostly if something has had no replies for many months - nobody is interested.

I absolutely hate when a thread I've finished with is rudely resurrected because another user has a "similar" issue.
Not so much of a problem here, but on other forums that notify you of new replies to your threads, it's infuriating.
Start your own thread for your own problem, don't use mine and flood me with notifications about something I'm already finished with!