# Resurrection of old threads



## DonnyB

I've noticed a growing tendency for forum members, particularly brand new ones, to tack new questions on to old threads some of which date back ten years to when the forums first started.  This has the effect of requiring us to wade through, in some cases, a couple of dozen or more posts in order to follow the logic of what's already been discussed before attempting to provide a reasonable answer. 

I don't mind so much where the topics under discussion, and the points raised, are still reasonably current, but it's apparent that in some cases people have found the thread via a Google search and have decided that they'd like to join in just to add their two cents' worth.

So I'd like to ask how people feel about the suggestion that threads more than, say, ten years old, or where the most recent post was more than five years ago, be automatically closed to new posts?

I have in mind here the English Only forum, which is the one I'm most familiar with, but I daresay the same thing happens in some of the forums as well.


----------



## Peterdg

DonnyB said:


> So I'd like to ask how people feel about the suggestion that threads more than, say, ten years old, or where the most recent post was more than five years ago, be automatically closed to new posts?


Hmmm, that's exactly the opposite of what the moderator team wants in the forums I'm familiar with (Spanish). They encourage to post in older threads instead of opening new ones. Also, newer threads are closed with the remark to continue the topic in an already existing thread.

I do understand the rationale behind this. Threads are displayed below dictionary entries as additional information; the selection of displayed threads is based on the thread title. If there are several threads about the same subject, it makes more sense that only a reduced number of threads about the subject is displayed in the dictionary; if there are tens of threads displayed, it's not easy for the dictionary user to find the relevant ones among a multitude of threads.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

DonnyB said:


> I've noticed a growing tendency for forum members, particularly brand new ones, to tack new questions on to old threads some of which date back ten years to when the forums first started.  This has the effect of requiring us to wade through, in some cases, a couple of dozen or more posts in order to follow the logic of what's already been discussed before attempting to provide a reasonable answer.
> 
> 
> So I'd like to ask how people feel about the suggestion that threads more than, say, ten years old, or where the most recent post was more than five years ago, be automatically closed to new posts?
> 
> .


Your suggestion is not in keeping with Rule 1 (search first) and rule 2 (Do not duplicate threads) so I'm afraid I cannot agree with you.
My suggestion is: when you find old threads about the same topic you're interested in, read them very carefully first and eventually tag your message on one of those old threads only if you need further clarification.
We really do not need more duplicated threads than those we already have.


----------



## siares

Peterdg said:


> I do understand the rationale behind this.


This rationale theoretically benefits the dictionary users (those who don't post). Practically, there are dozens of threads on many search terms - the battle has been lost.

Practically, I have this advice for dictionary users: - use 'search forums' - arrange results by number of replies. It is unlikely that a thread with 5 replies will be as useless as for example this thread: 
museum grade
with 931 views, which comes up within on 1st page of results under 'museum' in dictionary search.
If people were allowed to downvote threads, hopefully one of the first 100 would have done it and spared the other 800 the waste of time - and moved good threads up to the top.



Paulfromitaly said:


> Your suggestion is not in keeping with Rule 1 (search first) and rule 2 (Do not duplicate threads)


I always search first! The reason why I open a new thread isn't lack of searching. 
I wasn't aware of the rule 2, is it in general rules? I can never find those.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

siares said:


> I always search first!


Who said _you_ don't search first? 


> I wasn't aware of the rule 2, is it in general rules? I can never find those.


Yes



> *One topic per thread / No chatting.*
> Stay on the topic of the first post in each thread.
> Ask about only one topic in each thread. If you have more than one question, open a thread for each.
> If you wish to talk about a related subject that is different from the question posed in the first post of the thread, open a new thread.
> If you wish to talk about an unrelated subject or make an unrelated comment to another member, use the forum’s private message ('Conversations') feature. No chatting.
> Open only one thread for each question. _*Do not duplicate threads*_.


----------



## siares

Thank you.


Paulfromitaly said:


> Who said _you_ don't search first?


 I meant that Donny's suggestion cannot be said to be 'not keeping with the rule to search', it is indifferent to it.


> If you wish to talk about a related subject that is different from the question posed in the first post of the thread, open a new thread.


I'm relieved to read this as it gives a lot of leeway


----------



## wildan1

I would just like to add to PaulfromItaly's suggestions that when you see a discussion that has old, out-of-date or useless comments--or multiple discussions on the same topic--please alert our Moderator Team by clicking on "Report".

It is part of our work behind the scenes to clean up, merge and sometimes delete certain discussions--or parts of them--in order to make them more useful and readable to future users of the Forum. We may not be able to do it immediately, depending on other priorities, but we will take note of it and consider the suggestions you make.


----------



## Peterdg

siares said:


> Practically, there are dozens of threads on many search terms - the battle has been lost.


That may be true, but that is no excuse to make things worse.


----------



## siares

Peterdg said:


> That may be true, but that is no excuse to make things worse.


I was actually half-seriously thinking that posting new threads should be disabled on some days. Then all the threads on first page would be old - with new questions appended - and answerers would hopefully answer them.

However, I think answers wouldn't always be the best. "Read the question first" is I think a universal maxim in exam preparation everywhere; and because these are not exam conditions, answerers cannot be expected to read all preceding posts carefully. It would be going against human nature for rules to demand otherwise. Plus I think there would be a lot of experiences like askers have nowadays *if* an old thread is answered: some post in the thread gets answered, but the appended question remains unaddressed.

_Can moderators tell whether people click 'more' to reveal more threads than there is on first page of results in dictionary search?

_


----------



## Loob

I think you're right, siares: the battle has been lost.


----------



## wildan1

siares said:


> Then all the threads on first page would be old - with new questions appended - and answerers would hopefully answer them.


But when an old discussion has a new post added, it automatically goes to page 1 already...


----------



## siares

wildan1 said:


> But when an old discussion has a new post added, it automatically goes to page 1 already...


But it is there along with the brand new questions, and it doesn´t get answered (very often)- new questions get answered instead; that's the whole problem. If there were no new questions on the first page, there would be no such 'discrimination'.*

It is good to have a view of an answerer rather than asker, especially a long term one, on answering old threads.
Having read too many old CS threads, I became allergic to suggestions from mod team which often give one-sided reasons only: your question wasn't answered because it was badly stated (go back and add some context) / People felt your question had been answered in the old posts above so that's why they didn't say anything (despite having read all the posts thoroughly)

There is a workaround I mentioned for avoiding useless threads in search - even though voting would be better; but there isn't a good workaround for getting answers on old threads. So I have no sympathy for the plight of the dictionary users (of which I am one anyway)

* I think many of the resulting threads would become long and convoluted. From (too) many clear threads, to lower number (and more easily searchable) number of unfollowable ones.


----------



## Loob

I think Donny's post is interesting.  It may help to explain why a lot - the majority? - of resuscitated threads are not answered.


----------



## Kelly B

siares said:


> This rationale theoretically *unquestionably* benefits the dictionary users (those who don't post don't need to start new threads if they can find the answer in an existing one).


I'm a very, very frequent dictionary user and I would *strenuously *object to that change.  It is very rare that I need to start new threads, because I can usually find a good answer in existing threads. This is only possible because the moderating team puts a great deal of effort into minimizing the number of threads I need to dig through to find answers. I try to assist by reporting threads to suggest merges, deletions, title changes for searchability, etc.

I also object to the notion that dictionary users don't post, but that's not a big deal.


----------



## Loob

I do think it would be enormously useful if the threads produced by a dictionary search could indicate
(1) how old each thread is
(2) how many posts it has
(3) if it's closed.


----------



## Kelly B

I'm with you there.


----------



## wildan1

Loob said:


> I do think it would be enormously useful if the threads produced by a dictionary search could indicate
> (1) how old each thread is
> (2) how many posts it has
> (3) if it's closed.


All that information is already displayed:

1) The discussion's start date is directly below the OP's username
2) The number of messages in the discussion (as well as number of times viewed) is in the "Replies - Views" column
3) Closed discussions are displayed in a darker shade.


----------



## Kelly B

I think Loob means on the dictionary page display itself, so when confronted with a massive list, you can more easily decide what to click first. A regular forum search will give you that information, yes, but a dictionary search only gives you a list. (edit: I'm far more likely to do a dictionary search than a regular forum search, and I expect that's true for many users.)

It might be difficult to do that without making it look cluttered, though.


----------



## Loob

Kelly B said:


> I think Loob means on the dictionary page display itself, so when confronted with a massive list, you can more easily decide what to click first. A regular forum search will give you that information, yes, but a dictionary search only gives you a list.
> 
> It might be difficult to do that without making it look cluttered, though.


Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

(I'm not sure it _would_ look cluttered - but I do understand that it might be difficult to achieve.)

Edit: typo​


----------



## siares

Loob said:


> I do think it would be enormously useful if the threads produced by a dictionary search could indicate


D you mean it should give exactly the same results as the in-forum search, or something slightly different - for example keep the alphabetical order rather than an order by another criterium such as number of replies? 


Loob said:


> how old each thread is


I'm curious, why the age?


----------



## Loob

I have no particular preference about the order, siares. It's just that I think the more information a dictionary search provides, the better. 
Providing more information about previous threads might help people to sift through those threads - and might help people to find the answer they're looking for.


----------



## siares

Thanks Loob. I think age would not help to pick the best answer, also very many long locked threads are very informative. Combination of locked and low number of posts is very telling, but even low number of posts in itself.
This would definitely help those unaware of in-forum search, or those who find using it strenuous.

Otherwise this thread, in my eyes, can be added to the treasure trove of those arguing for status quo regarding the problem of no answers on old threads, where proposal of any change is strenuously opposed, with existing 'solutions' being put forward over and over again.


----------



## wildan1

Kelly B said:


> I think Loob means on the dictionary page display itself, so when confronted with a massive list, you can more easily decide what to click first. A regular forum search will give you that information, yes, but a dictionary search only gives you a list.
> 
> It might be difficult to do that without making it look cluttered, though.



In that case, whether or not it is a good idea, the first question to ask is whether our XenForo software is capable of producing search reports with all those details.

Let's ask Mike Kellogg, WRF owner.

@mkellogg


----------

