It's not dishonest, no one's lying to you. These are old threads that had no responses and were never closed, so they weren't reopened. Greg just wanted to some answers posted to old questions that had no response.caz said:It seems dishonest.
It takes some time on PF to shift one's thinking. The answers are not just for the benefit of the OP. They are for future people who find the thread via Internet search, and who are probably not PF members. In some cases, those users outnumber PF members on a thread by more than 1000:1.caz said:It seems dishonest.
If you're referring to the concerted effort by PF staff to make sure all threads have at least one reply, just think of it as 'clerical work' by the staff. If you're referring to something else, I have no knowledge of it and thus have nothing to say that's worth saying about it.caz said:Given the large amount of necroposting that is now tolerated, shouldn‘t all threads be open to this.
You have been here long enough that you should be aware that PF considers thread value way beyond helping the OP. This has always been the case and a large part of the value of PF is indeed for non-members. There is nothing new there.caz said:So PF wants to greatly increase its archive of solved problems for the benefit of people who are not members?
It is highly unlikely that anyone will find a homework problem posted 10 years ago that happens to exactly coincide with their own. If they do, then there is a high probability that solutions are already circulating freely at that university.caz said:This does not seem to be consistent with the “show your work” rules.
No. This is again showing a lack of understanding of PFs multiple purposes. You are also not listening. The problem is not that the threads are unanswered, it is that they are threads generating at least some traffic from search engines - meaning that people are looking for answers to similar problems. It would therefore be directly counter productive to PFs purposes to simply delete those threads rather than to create actual value and purpose by providing answers.caz said:If unanswered threads are a problem, a more consistent solution would be to delete unanswered threads of a certain age.
The necroposts with questions, requests for more information and insults would be amusing if they were not so sad.haruspex said:Nothing to add.
Go to the “what’s new page” and read a bunch of them. Many read poorly.Drakkith said:What's sad about them?
I have kept a civil tone and now I am a troll whose motivations have been questioned.DaveE said:Don't feed the trolls. He can be bitter and dislike PF without our help. There's no useful content in this thread.
No, it is not. The opposing argument is leaving people searching for a particular question to whatever answers are already on the web, typically of far lower quality than PF answers.caz said:The opposing argument is essentially quantity is quality.
Do you think that the average “new” thread is at the same level of quality as an average “normal” thread? I will admit that there are some very nice responses, but I feel that the overall average is significantly lower.Orodruin said:No, it is not. The opposing argument is leaving people searching for a particular question to whatever answers are already on the web, typically of far lower quality than PF answers.
With respect, I still have little idea about what you're arguing. It's obvious from the thread title that you want to unlock old threads, but you've given no reasons for this other than vaguely stating 14 posts into the thread that some of the replies to these old, unanswered threads "read poorly". You certainly haven't been arguing for quality over quantity. There wasn't any mention about the quality of replies until post 14. So please don't make snide remarks to other members like "its sad that you do not" when you haven't put together a coherent argument in any sense of the words 'coherent' or 'argument'.caz said:I have been poorly making the argument of quality over quantity. The opposing argument is essentially quantity is quality. I would say that both arguments are legitimate and it is sad that you do not.
I noticed a discrepancy (before this new effort, necroposting was discouraged and there are threads that discuss the reasons for locking old threads) and I brought it up. I can honestly say that I do not have a list of locked threads (or a single locked thread - I am not parsing words) that I am wanting to respond to. As the discussion proceeded my views about it evolved. I have suggested to you and @Orodruin to look at the “new” threads, but you have not done so.Drakkith said:With respect, I still have little idea about what you're arguing. It's obvious from the thread title that you want to unlock old threads, but you've given no reasons for this other than vaguely stating 14 posts into the thread that some of the replies to these old, unanswered threads "read poorly". You certainly haven't been arguing for quality over quantity. There wasn't any mention about the quality of replies until post 14. So please don't make snide remarks to other members like "its sad that you do not" when you haven't put together a coherent argument in any sense of the words 'coherent' or 'argument'.
It's always been the case that 0 reply threads have been open, no matter the age. Nothing has changed. If you'd like to look for 0 reply threads from 2003 and earnestly reply to them, then I support that. Again, nothing has changed.caz said:Given the large amount of necroposting that is now tolerated, shouldn‘t all threads be open to this.
The "What's New" section shows some old threads have resurfaced. Out of curiosity: have we restarted spring cleaning?Greg Bernhardt said:If you'd like to look for 0 reply threads from 2003 and earnestly reply to them, then I support that.
Sorry, my post was insensitive.caz said:I have kept a civil tone and now I am a troll whose motivations have been questioned.
I have been poorly making the argument of quality over quantity. The opposing argument is essentially quantity is quality. I would say that both arguments are legitimate and it is sad that you do not.
There are about 500 we are targeting for repliesWrichik Basu said:The "What's New" section shows some old threads have resurfaced. Out of curiosity: have we restarted spring cleaning?
You have no idea what I have or haven't done. In fact, looking at the "new" threads was the first thing I did upon reading your earlier post suggesting it to me.caz said:I have suggested to you and @Orodruin to look at the “new” threads, but you have not done so.
For the record, I have no problem with suggestions. Even those I disagree with. I do have a problem with suggestions accompanied by insults towards others. You seem to have taken disagreement with your suggestion as some sort of personal insult, claiming that you had written something that would probably get you banned in post #5:caz said:I am tired of one against n and will stop following this thread.
I cannot fathom how either of Orodruin's two responses to you by this point would have irked you so badly that you would write a response that would get you banned.caz said:Looking at the draft of my response, I instead think I’ll sign out for a while before getting myself banned.