Suggestion: Auto-locking of dead threads

[Deleted member 211486]

To avoid any unnecessary action of mods to lock a thread every single time a user revives a thread, why not implement an auto-locking of threads?

It's also quite embarrassing when someone revives a thread then suddenly a mod comes in and replies, "No reviving of dead threads. Thread... CLOSED."

Doncha think?

 

[Ho-Oh]

Because sometimes people need to quote from older posts, and if the threads are locked you can't actually use the quote feature - and it won't even let you blog it to be able to c/p, etc. Besides, different forums have different revival rules so you'd have to have about four or five exceptions to the auto-lock. Plus locked threads look intimidating to newer members, while open threads don't give off that vibe.

 

[Blizz]

This is good idea but is it possible? I know vBulletin includes many features but does it include this feature? And then there are exceptions, you can't lock everything - revival rules. But after all good idea but needs little modifying so it can work perfectly.

You ninja'd me Nica.

 

[Deleted member 211486]

This is good idea but is it possible? I know vBulletin includes many features but does it include this feature? And then there are exceptions, you can't lock everything - revival rules. But after all good idea but needs little modifying so it can work perfectly.

You ninja'd me Nica.

Then why not make auto-lock features ONLY for threads that have that 'No Revival' rule in PC?

 

[Oryx]

Because some sections don't have one page of active threads so it'll have tons of locked threads on the first page, and locking every single one makes the forum look foreboding and scary and not somewhere you'd want to post.

 

[Kenshin5]

Me personally I see no need for an auto lock feature. If it's cause of the embarrassment factor I really don't see that as an issue. If you are new here you shouldn't be embarrassed that you broke a rule like that or over looked it, stuff like that happens the mods comment just serves as a reminder to that user and others of the rule.

 

[Deleted member 211486]

Because some sections don't have one page of active threads so it'll have tons of locked threads on the first page, and locking every single one makes the forum look foreboding and scary and not somewhere you'd want to post.

Then why not just delete those pages? -.-

 

[Ho-Oh]

If you delete the older pages of forums then members lose posts, information can't easily be found, and so on - since sometimes the answers to things are on those old pages, meaning it's easier to just search than to ask again every single time. It seems like more of a hassle really to do that.

 

[Oryx]

Because people still use them? I love reading old threads and often people post in a thread because they found it after searching for a similar topic on Google. Posting in old threads isn't a big deal, really. I've never felt put out for having to lock it and moderators don't come down on it super hard or get upset so what's the problem?

 

[Kenshin5]

Then why not just delete those pages? -.-

Outside of the fact that we aren't really into deleting stuff, the content on those pages may prove useful in some way for the future. Say for instance someone wants to rehash an idea from months or years ago then can go back to those pages for ideas.

 

[Archer]

While I don't agree with locking threads automatically, is it possible to have some sort of notification when posting in a thread past a certain age?

"This thread has not been posted in for X days. Are you sure you want to post?"

...or something along those lines. I'll admit that on the odd two or three occasions I've revived threads over the last few years, it has been an accident where I didn't notice the age of the thread. Especially when linked to threads.

 

[Blizz]

While I don't agree with locking threads automatically, is it possible to have some sort of notification when posting in a thread past a certain age?

"This thread has not been posted in for X days. Are you sure you want to post?"

...or something along those lines. I'll admit that on the odd two or three occasions I've revived threads over the last few years, it has been an accident where I didn't notice the age of the thread. Especially when linked to threads.

I think that's possible and that would be even better idea than auto-locking the threads. SMF has this feature and I think vB must have this feature too because vBulletin is pretty expensive. But then comes the question: "Can you define when the notification comes?" because some sections have that revival rule.

 

[Nick]

I don't even agree with mods locking threads that are revived in the first place. I'd much rather them just delete the post that revived the thread, or split it into a new thread. Still, it's their decision.

I was browsing the B&W forum, and while we're on the subject of locked threads, I think it would be amaaaazing if we could have an option to hide normal (non-stickied) threads that are locked from view.

 

[Nihilego]

I'll just add that it's probably less work for mods to close the occasional threads than it is for us to find and install a plugin for this. I never saw it as a massive issue anyway; I've only had a few revived threads and most of the time they were adbot posts.

I was browsing the B&W forum, and while we're on the subject of locked threads, I think it would be amaaaazing if we could have an option to hide normal (non-stickied) threads that are locked from view.

I like this, but won't members want to know why the thread was closed? And wouldn't new members appreciate a few closed threads of examples as what does and doesn't work with the rules?

 

[Yoshikkko]

I'll just add that it's probably less work for mods to close the occasional threads than it is for us to find and install a plugin for this. I never saw it as a massive issue anyway; I've only had a few revived threads and most of the time they were adbot posts.



I like this, but won't members want to know why the thread was closed? And wouldn't new members appreciate a few closed threads of examples as what does and doesn't work with the rules?

I kind of agree with this yeah, such threads can serve as examples and to show how such things are handled, and what kind of threads would be good for a section and what kind wouldn't be. It helped me too when I wasn't sure!

I don't really think it's necessary, it's fine as it is imo, dead threads are just bumped down, and if they are revived, they'll be either locked or re-made and that just works I think.

 

[vaporeon7]

While I don't agree with locking threads automatically, is it possible to have some sort of notification when posting in a thread past a certain age?

"This thread has not been posted in for X days. Are you sure you want to post?"

...or something along those lines. I'll admit that on the odd two or three occasions I've revived threads over the last few years, it has been an accident where I didn't notice the age of the thread. Especially when linked to threads.

I think this would be a really cool thing to have because many people might be aware of the no revival rule and may have simply misread the date and having something after you click submit reply that tells you that it has been over 30 days (or however many) could really save them having to get a warning and save everyone some time.

Dead threads don't need an auto lock, it will make everything look scary to people that come from other forums that don't have it.