Suggestion Auto-lock ancient threads?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlephZero
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Reviving old threads from years past is a common issue, prompting the suggestion to automatically lock threads that haven't seen new posts in 12 months. Concerns were raised about locking potentially confusing users, as it might imply negative content. Some participants argue that locking threads could hinder discussions of new developments related to older topics, suggesting instead that users link to old threads in new discussions. There is also a proposal for a visual distinction for ancient posts to reduce confusion. Overall, the idea of locking threads remains contentious, with varying opinions on the appropriate time frame for inactivity.
AlephZero
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
6,983
Reaction score
299
People keep reviving threads that died years ago. Maybe Google finds them, or sometimes they turn up on the "related threads" list in PF.

Why not automatically lock any thread that has had no new posts for say 12 months? If giving it a "locked" icon might be confusing (suggesting there was something bad about with the content), you could remove the part of the page that let's you create a new post.

EDIT: I see the "related threads" for this one are two from 2008, one from 2005 and one from 2004. I rest my case, m'lud :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think it's not a bad idea.
 
AlephZero said:
EDIT: I see the "related threads" for this one are two from 2008, one from 2005 and one from 2004. I rest my case, m'lud :smile:

Well, there was a similar concern last month and there are reasons to not lock ancient threads.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3222200&postcount=5"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
However if one wants to relate new devellopments to an old thread, one can simply link to that in the OP of a new thread. Mentors can merge those if desired.

Alternately maybe Greg can fix something to made palaeo posts disctinct by fading the fonts or so, so that MiH doesn't have to be promoted to the sixth order of whatever wizards to recognize them.
 
I'd say twelve months is two short. Three years maybe.
 
Andre said:
However if one wants to relate new devellopments to an old thread, one can simply link to that in the OP of a new thread. Mentors can merge those if desired.

Yes. I agree.

One could quote any relevant portion, if necessary, then give a link to that thread.
 
I want to thank those members who interacted with me a couple of years ago in two Optics Forum threads. They were @Drakkith, @hutchphd, @Gleb1964, and @KAHR-Alpha. I had something I wanted the scientific community to know and slipped a new idea in against the rules. Thank you also to @berkeman for suggesting paths to meet with academia. Anyway, I finally got a paper on the same matter as discussed in those forum threads, the fat lens model, got it peer-reviewed, and IJRAP...
This came up in my job today (UXP). Never thought to raise it here on PF till now. Hyperlinks really should be underlined at all times. PF only underlines them when they are rolled over. Colour alone (especially dark blue/purple) makes it difficult to spot a hyperlink in a large block of text (or even a small one). Not everyone can see perfectly. Even if they don't suffer from colour deficiency, not everyone has the visual acuity to distinguish two very close shades of text. Hover actions...
About 20 years ago, in my mid-30s (and with a BA in economics and a master's in business), I started taking night classes in physics hoping to eventually earn the science degree I'd always wanted but never pursued. I found physics forums and used it to ask questions I was unable to get answered from my textbooks or class lectures. Unfortunately, work and life got in the way and I never got further the freshman courses. Well, here it is 20 years later. I'm in my mid-50s now, and in a...

Similar threads

Back
Top