Suggestion: lock threads older than X weeks or months
-
But it would be nice if, when you try to add an answer to an old question, you'd get a popup stating "This is an old question, are you sure you want to add an answer to it?"
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Yes. I know of at least one forum that puts a reminder prominently on top of the edit box for entering a post in case the thread is older than two months. Something along the line of: "This thread is older than two months. Be sure that you are really adding value before posting." It's obvious because it shifts the edit box a little downwards, and it's nonintrusive. Also you'd notice it before spending time writing up your post, therefore I think it's better than a popup when trying to send a finished posting.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
-
Yes. I know of at least one forum that puts a reminder prominently on top of the edit box for entering a post in case the thread is older than two months. Something along the line of: "This thread is older than two months. Be sure that you are really adding value before posting." It's obvious because it shifts the edit box a little downwards, and it's nonintrusive. Also you'd notice it before spending time writing up your post, therefore I think it's better than a popup when trying to send a finished posting.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
Even better.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
Yes. I know of at least one forum that puts a reminder prominently on top of the edit box for entering a post in case the thread is older than two months. Something along the line of: "This thread is older than two months. Be sure that you are really adding value before posting." It's obvious because it shifts the edit box a little downwards, and it's nonintrusive. Also you'd notice it before spending time writing up your post, therefore I think it's better than a popup when trying to send a finished posting.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
That's a good possibility too :thumbsup: @Chris-Maunder or @matthew-dennis the point already has the flag "rejected", but the debate continued... I think it is worth to consider this option
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Yes. I know of at least one forum that puts a reminder prominently on top of the edit box for entering a post in case the thread is older than two months. Something along the line of: "This thread is older than two months. Be sure that you are really adding value before posting." It's obvious because it shifts the edit box a little downwards, and it's nonintrusive. Also you'd notice it before spending time writing up your post, therefore I think it's better than a popup when trying to send a finished posting.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
Next question: what do you use to calculate that it's "two months old"?
- The date the question was first posted;
- The date the question was last edited;
- The date of the last answer;
- Something else?
I don't think that date of the last answer would work - that would suffer from the same problem as the revision date we currently have. Spam answers drag the question back to the top of the list and then get kicked into oblivion, but still count as the "last answer". Personally I think the date of the last edit to the question would be the best bet. But it's still not foolproof: what if a spam answer drags the question back into the active list, and a well-meaning editor edits the question to fix the formatting, not noticing the original date? Would we need to add the warning to the edit box as well?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Next question: what do you use to calculate that it's "two months old"?
- The date the question was first posted;
- The date the question was last edited;
- The date of the last answer;
- Something else?
I don't think that date of the last answer would work - that would suffer from the same problem as the revision date we currently have. Spam answers drag the question back to the top of the list and then get kicked into oblivion, but still count as the "last answer". Personally I think the date of the last edit to the question would be the best bet. But it's still not foolproof: what if a spam answer drags the question back into the active list, and a well-meaning editor edits the question to fix the formatting, not noticing the original date? Would we need to add the warning to the edit box as well?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
Spam answers drag the question back to the top of the list and then get kicked into oblivion, but still count as the "last answer".
For that the "This question has got X answers so far" or "last answer posted on XXXX-XX-XX" could help, when the info remains after a spam nuke
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
Spam answers drag the question back to the top of the list and then get kicked into oblivion, but still count as the "last answer".
For that the "This question has got X answers so far" or "last answer posted on XXXX-XX-XX" could help, when the info remains after a spam nuke
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
That would rely on people reading the message. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
That would rely on people reading the message. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Yes... that's true. :-D
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Next question: what do you use to calculate that it's "two months old"?
- The date the question was first posted;
- The date the question was last edited;
- The date of the last answer;
- Something else?
I don't think that date of the last answer would work - that would suffer from the same problem as the revision date we currently have. Spam answers drag the question back to the top of the list and then get kicked into oblivion, but still count as the "last answer". Personally I think the date of the last edit to the question would be the best bet. But it's still not foolproof: what if a spam answer drags the question back into the active list, and a well-meaning editor edits the question to fix the formatting, not noticing the original date? Would we need to add the warning to the edit box as well?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
Personally I think the date of the last edit to the question would be the best bet.
Yes.
Richard Deeming wrote:
But it's still not foolproof
Well, there is no such thing. But this is close enough.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
Personally I think the date of the last edit to the question would be the best bet.
Yes.
Richard Deeming wrote:
But it's still not foolproof
Well, there is no such thing. But this is close enough.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Indeed. To quote Douglas Adams:
Quote:
“A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.”
;)
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
-
Indeed. To quote Douglas Adams:
Quote:
“A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.”
;)
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
A mistake which can easily be rectified by spending five minutes perusing QA. :laugh:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
