Auto close threads

[v8Statesman]

Don't know if this can be done, but what do people think of the forum software auto closing threads after say 365 days of inactivity. Newbies that do searches every now and again post replies to really old threads. Today 1 was 4 years old!

 

[oz_mark]

Not sure it is a standard vBulletin thing, but there are add-ons available.

I suggested a similar thing once, the question and answer is here: http://www.frequentflyer.com.au/com...ut-the-forum-software-6046-13.html#post153241

 

[v8Statesman]

Cheers for that. Will be interesting is a new debate about it starts as that was approx 2 years ago.

 

[Grooba]

I don't think it's a big deal if a thread is revived for whatever reason. It's better to revive an old thread than start a new one that is exactly the same.

 

[samh004]

It seems this plug-in works with the current version of vBulletin, which is 3.8.1. Not sure if it's the best solution to the problem. And it would ultimately be up to admin.

 

[Evan]

What would almost be better is to have a plug-in that warns you if you try to post to say a thread older than 60 days. you can choose to continue or abort.

 

[auriga]

Yes, I would like to see that, although I think 365 days is rather long! Would prefer 2 or 3 months.

 

[serfty]

Personally, I would rather threads not be closed automatically.

While what was true in 2006 may not be true now, there is (IMHO) more of a chance of it still being relevant.

It depends upon the thread topic, content etc., but for me - no auto close.

 

[NM]

I don't think it's a big deal if a thread is revived for whatever reason. It's better to revive an old thread than start a new one that is exactly the same.

If its an old thread (and I would say that normally means more than a year old) and its another question on the same topic, then I would prefer to see a new thread created with the initial post including a link to the original thread. That way someone reading the thread knows its a new thread, can still see the original discussion for means of background, and is not confused by any old content or misunderstanding the dates and starting to re-respond to old information.

Reviving an old thread wit a new post should really only be done for the purpose of providing follow-up information for the original discussion (i.e. an outcome).

 

[serfty]

... Reviving an old thread wit a new post should really only be done for the purpose of providing follow-up information for the original discussion (i.e. an outcome).

... which is hard to do if it's been autolocked ...

 

[Travel Guru]

If its an old thread (and I would say that normally means more than a year old) and its another question on the same topic, then I would prefer to see a new thread created with the initial post including a link to the original thread. That way someone reading the thread knows its a new thread, can still see the original discussion for means of background, and is not confused by any old content or misunderstanding the dates and starting to re-respond to old information.

Reviving an old thread wit a new post should really only be done for the purpose of providing follow-up information for the original discussion (i.e. an outcome).

I agree, I find it annoying when old threads are revived, and quite frankly dont bother reading them. Would much rather a new thread with a link.

TG

 

[v8Statesman]

... which is hard to do if it's been autolocked ...

True, but can you think of a follow up outcome on here that has been postedmore than a year later? Even if someone was doind a court case they would post every few months or so.

I do see both points of view. I think both camps have valid reasons. It is good to see debate on it. Even if we are somewhat members of a dictatorship (IE what admin wants, admin gets)

 

[codash1099]

I'm with the "close 'em" crowd. If an outcome takes a year to post, it's hardly relevant, and, in any case, this would be pretty rare.

 

[Flashback]

... which is hard to do if it's been autolocked ...

Would just mean more work for the mods to temp re-open it :mrgreen:

 

[NM]

I'm with the "close 'em" crowd. If an outcome takes a year to post, it's hardly relevant, and, in any case, this would be pretty rare.

On the rare occasion when follow-up for a closed thread is prudent, it would be possible to use PM or "Report Post" and have it re-opened by a moderator.

 

[serfty]

Would just mean more work for the mods to temp re-open it :mrgreen:

Exactly! .

 

[serfty]

If its an old thread (and I would say that normally means more than a year old) and its another question on the same topic, then I would prefer to see a new thread created with the initial post including a link to the original thread. ...

And this requires more work as well.

It's not broken so there's nothing to fix ...

 

[v8Statesman]

And this requires more work as well.

It's not broken so there's nothing to fix ...

Ammendment. Can you allow the OP to post to closed threads allowing follow up?

 

[Flashback]

Ammendment. Can you allow the OP to post to closed threads allowing follow up?

While that may work in theory ... sometimes there is more than 1 OP using the 1 thread ...

The AMEX 5/5 thread is a good example of this!

 

[oz_mark]

And this requires more work as well.

It's not broken so there's nothing to fix ...

Which happens more often:

a) An old thread has follow up material, relevant to the thread, added to it
b) An old thread is found by someone and resurrected when a new thread would be more appropriate