Old Threads

This has bugged me ever since I got here...

So, mods get mad at you for posting in old threads but they do nothing to keep people from posting in them. Like, they should lock them after a month or so has passed. People who post in old threads (especially newbies who really don't know better) get in trouble for it when it is clearly the moderations fault.

I have had experiences with this, and I've seen people get in trouble for it ever since I've been here. I can understand if a month goes by, but there have been threads that have been around for YEARS and somebody bumps them, all heck breaks lose. I just think with all the Mods in ZU they could at least clean up the forums a bit.

Also, what is wrong with bumping an old thread? I mean, if they make an exact duplicate, you'll say "We already have a thread for that" even though its old. But if you bump it, its locked.... Then what? Make the thread again anyways? I mean... come on!


Those are just my feelings. I think something should be done here.

Originally Posted by sugarpoultry

Like, they should lock them after a month or so has passed.

That wouldn't work. Most mods tend to only check certain forums. (Excluding Forum/Section mods, as we know where they are). Many threads go by, unnoticed. And of course, you'd have to manually go and check all the threads that haven't been locked and are over a month old. Unless there's something that would automatically close them, none of the moderators would care to do that.

Those are just my feelings. Also, what is wrong with bumping an old thread? I mean, if they make a new one same topic, you'll say "We already have a thread for that" even though its old. But if you bump it, its locked. Then what? Make the thread again anyways? I mean... come on!

I don't find anything wrong with bumping a thread, unless you're requesting something or it's just plain stupid. In fact, it'd save the immense amount of space ZU has a little bit if just one specific thread were up for certain popular topics. (Basically topics that are constant repeats).

Yeah, I can understand that mods can be quite lazy, and of course ZU is HUGE. But each mod has a very even amount of threads to watch over, it wouldn't take that long to find the ones that have been out of date.

Plus, my husband is a programmer and he says its fairly easy to program a forum to automatically lock threads after a certain amount of inactivity. Of course, Vbulletin might limit that capability.

For the money you pay for it, you should be able to.

Originally Posted by Vaati

just one specific thread were up for certain popular topics. (Basically topics that are constant repeats).

Yeah, like "OoT for DS?" "Link is Gay!" "Twilight Princess is an OoT Clone!" and "Which Console is Better? (Oh, wait, we already have this. Then what's up with the multiple-Console/Flame War-Gaming: Serious Business threads?)" threads.

Wow, I was actually thinking about this...

I think it should at be at least longer than a month... more like 2 or 3.

And yeah, they could lock all the rest as I don't think it would be a good idea to delete them.

Some people might want to go back to reminisce :p

Yeah I'm talking about locking. The only time you delete a thread is if its pure spam, like some spammer signed up just do to do it.

I'm not even sure how long a thread is considered old. I've seen them lock it for just barely a month.

I personally lock things if a) the question at hand has been answered, b) the discussion seems dead, or c) there is no point to keep it open. I usually lock them quite early, but there's nothing wrong with PMing a mod to ask why it was locked and/or if it can be re-opened.

Not that I think of, anyway.

And yeah, I can see all of those as legit reasons to close a thread. But I've seen them close it, just because its been inactive, by date only, having nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Sure, its dead because nobody had anything else to say, but I'm sure more people will come along to say something. And I've seen threads get resurrected after a time and continue deep good discussions.

But if mods are just going to shut it down anyways, why not just lock it when its time has come? To avoid having to lock it later.

Then, whats to stop them from posting another thread just like it and having the discussion continue? It's just an endless pointless circle. (of course, this only works if the thread isn't under your a or c category.)

Because sometimes threads go unseen, due to high activity and constant checking on other threads. It's no plan of ours to annoy you guys, it's just that there is a lot more to keep track of than you think.

Between layouts, clan tests, PMs, infractions, name changes, thread moving, locking, editing, checking for spam, dealing with member to member issues, etc there is A LOT going on.

Especially like now with several threads like the Brawl thread with five new posts every ten seconds, it needs a lot of attention, and with new games coming out we need to make sure spoiler tags are used, and things like that.

We do what we can, but there's a lot to do.

If you create a duplicate of a thread from a while ago, I've never seen a mod lock for that and tell you to go post in the original. o_O Also, I don't think locking after 1 month of inactivity is a good idea. Like Aeffles said, mods already have a ****load of work to do, going around and monitoring EVERY SINGLE THREAD in their forum to see if it's been inactive for a month, and locking if it has, would take ages.

I don't know much about this programme thing, but it would be able to prevent some threads from being closed after that time--right? A lot of threads in the Amphitheatre go months without posting, but then we just pick up right where we left off. All of those threads would have to be left; as well as every new thread would have to be entered into this regime.

I don't really see a major problem with what's going on now. It's an easy mistake to make, and the mods don't yell at you for making it. I even saw a mod revive a year old thread the other day. All it takes is a swift lock, and the problem is solved. Perhaps threads which were created/posted in could have asome form of an indicator to show how old it is? E.G: Make the date red on posts that were over four months old.

I just think that the balance of such a thing would be easily distorted. That's my view on it, whether it's agreed with or not.

One problem is that an automatic locking machine would be bad for the threads that ARE allowed to be revived from a month ago, like stickies, signature shops, art threads and battle arena battles.

sugarpoultry, I don't think that any of the mod staff actually get "mad" when an older thread is revived. We just simply lock them. This is the second or third time that I've seen this suggestion, and I've only been on ZU for about a year.

*shrugs*

I don't think that it's that big of a deal. Members should look at the last time the thread was posted in, that's all.



-------------------
EDIT: for reference,

--> Necromancy
--> Question about locked thread
--> Reviving old threads

I have always hated the 'one month old = lock' rule. If the conversation is still relevant, there is no reason to lock the thread. If not, then lock it.

This would never work, though, in the Zelda boards. They are made mostly of new members who just want to post one thread or idea, stick around for a couple months, then disappear. They don't want to check around old pages for the same idea, and even if they did, over half of the previous posters would already be gone.

I don't know how to conclude this post.