Suggestion Box

[Imaoldhippie]

JMHO but I think posts that are months old and every once in a while someone adds to it should be deleted.  Its boring to go to a forum and see posts several months old.  The subject has been beat to death, especially the ones that are snarky about hosts.

[vermint]

There are a few very long-running active threads on here ("active" being the operative word), and those should stay, IMO. But anything else over a year old could probably go. I'm constantly seeing threads that are as much as 4 years old pop up because someone has found it and posted to it without checking the date. How do they even find these old threads anyway?

[fthunt]

You've hit on a subject that's puzzled me......I've seen Monitors delete a posting saying it's an old posting.  I think to myself - well, why do you leave old postings and subjects up for us to see.  Sometimes Monitors' reasoning is beyond me.  If you don't want us to refer to them - delete them!

[Peaches McPhee]

Those are called "zombie threads'.  No one has posted for weeks, then someone does, and bam, it comes back to life.

[SunValley]

@fthunt I have the same questions about getting in trouble for replying to old posts. Especially since you can't see the date until you open the thread, and the boards are so slow that old threads are not buried deep in the pages, often staying on the first page of the forum for months. Anything visible but not locked should be fair game for posting.

I also question the scenario where the thread is closed because the mod thinks it has run its course. Why not let the thread stop when posters decide to move on, especially when there are just a few posts or even none that had to be poofed. Just because the mod is bored with the exchange doesn't mean the posters are. It's discouraging.

[Moonchilde]

---

@SunValley wrote:

@fthunt I have the same questions about getting in trouble for replying to old posts. Especially since you can't see the date until you open the thread, and the boards are so slow that old threads are not buried deep in the pages, often staying on the first page of the forum for months. Anything visible but not locked should be fair game for posting.

I also question the scenario where the thread is closed because the mod thinks it has run its course. Why not let the thread stop when posters decide to move on, especially when there are just a few posts or even none that had to be poofed. Just because the mod is bored with the exchange doesn't mean the posters are. It's discouraging.

---

Ordinary posters do not "get in trouble" for accidentally replying to an old thread. The moderators, probably when initially alerted, do go around closing artificially resurrected posts by trolls - such as a recent spate where someone was resurrecting many of the threads started by a poster who supposedly no longer posts - presumably to get people to think the poster was back, or just to otherwise pot-stir.

If a poster brings an old thread to the attention of a moderator, they will probably delete it when asked; otherwise they won't even know. The moderators don't read every post made on these forums 24/7 and spend their shifts making constant delete decisions and nothing else; they have other job duties; rotinely deleting all old posts is not among their duties.

"This thread has run its course" is simply a polite way of saying 'Closing this thread because y'all are off-topic,  attacking each other, going political, bickering and/or getting ruder, so gonna cut you off now.' It generally means the thread is on a straight track to rude and/or political. I think most people understand the meaning well.

[dooBdoo]

---

Peaches McPhee wrote:

Those are called "zombie threads'.  No one has posted for weeks, then someone does, and bam, it comes back to life.

---

            It's also called "necroposting" and "thread bumping."   The standards say that bumping isn't permitted, but no time frame is specified.   From watching the threads over time, it appears to me that if a thread is just a few months old it won't be closed or removed if someone bumps it.   Bumped threads that are a year or more old seem to be deleted or closed.   But, still, I have no idea what the cutoff point is.  

            In general, bumping old threads on any forum is deemed inconsiderate and posters are encouraged to, instead, start new threads.

[dooBdoo]

            @Imaoldhippie and @fthunt,  The moderators can't go back through thousands of threads and remove or close them.   They're not the IT department.    

            What works is a software loop to run on a regular basis, to keep things up-to-date -- probably once a week -- to find and close inactive threads.    The software looks at the most recent post on each thread, matches it to a pre-detemined date (such as one year ago from whatever today's date is), and closes those threads.   Using the most recent post on a thread would prevent closing long-standing daily chats which might've started years ago but are still active and current.    It's very simple programming, but this forum platform doesn't allow for much in the way of customization (to put it mildly).

            I think deleting older, dormant threads would not be a good idea, because there are many older threads used for reference (the recipes are a great example).

            @fthunt,  The moderators delete them because the standards say no bumping.   

[dooBdoo]

---

vermint wrote:

There are a few very long-running active threads on here ("active" being the operative word), and those should stay, IMO. But anything else over a year old could probably go. I'm constantly seeing threads that are as much as 4 years old pop up because someone has found it and posted to it without checking the date.

How do they even find these old threads anyway?

---

          @vermint, I think people find the old threads when they use the search box to find a keyword or a phrase.    The list pops up with suggestions that often go back to some of the oldest threads still in existence.   If the poster doesn't look at the thread's date...  they add a post and the ancient discussion pops up to the top of the forum.

            Another scenario:   When we try to start a new thread and start typing in the subject line, we see a list of suggested topics (unless we turn suggestions off).    All of those topic suggestions actually are threads already in existence.   If we click on one of the suggested topics, we're redirected to a thread instead of being able to start a new one.    If it happens to be an old thread, and we add a post...  that's another bump.

           I think I made that as clear as mud! 🙃😜  Maybe someone else will explain it better than I.😊  

[Moonchilde]

@dooBdoo, what drives me crazy (and undoubtedly confuses newer posters who don't realize it) is that if you're actually looking for a specific recent thread, for example, one that is less than 2 weeks old - the listings appear to be random. A year old thread might come up before a 3 week old thread, or even a 3 year old thread; that's just dumb by any standards. I can't imagine what on earth the algorithm is on that.