Zombie Threads

[noumpere]

14 minutes ago, Mudisfun said:

Another site I cruise though locks threads after 7-10 days of inactivity on that thread... really annoying when you do not visit daily and have something to add to the discussion.

I agree with @Kevin_K, is this really an issue to have to be concerned with?

imo, 99.9% of the time, if you don't visit in 7-10 days, you don't really have something to add to the discussion.

[yawetag]

1 hour ago, Mudisfun said:

I agree with @Kevin_K, is this really an issue to have to be concerned with?

If we make the change, the worst that happens is someone starts a new thread. If we don't, someone zombies a thread.

Which worst is best for the forums?

[The Man in Blue]

Personal opinion (and yes, I expect change back from my two cents) ...

On this forum and one I have frequented for far too long, I never look at the dates of posts.  The conversation is interesting and educational or it isn’t.  Many times I’ve fallen into zombie threads that had been resurrected.  Never have I said “Damn zombie thread, this information is dumb because it is X years old!”

[Thunderheads]

21 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Personal opinion (and yes, I expect change back from my two cents) ...

On this forum and one I have frequented for far too long, I never look at the dates of posts.  The conversation is interesting and educational or it isn’t.  Many times I’ve fallen into zombie threads that had been resurrected.  Never have I said “Damn zombie thread, this information is dumb because it is X years old!”

but if it's been discussed ad nauseum, then yes, ...it can be 'dumb' because it's X years old

[Mudisfun]

22 hours ago, yawetag said:

If we make the change, the worst that happens is someone starts a new thread. If we don't, someone zombies a thread.

Which worst is best for the forums?

Honestly, it is UIC's site. However he wants to set it up is fine with me... Neither are going to have any real impact in my life, so honestly? I really do not care. 

[maven]

1 hour ago, Mudisfun said:

Honestly, it is UIC's site. However he wants to set it up is fine with me... Neither are going to have any real impact in my life, so honestly? I really do not care. 

[Umpire in Chief]

I found an add on software that isn't too expensive that I think I'll try out. It will lock a thread after a number of days I set and will also allow me to create a message stating the thread is locked b/c it is old. I will look at adding it soon. 

It doesn't hurt to try and if it isn't received well then I'll ditch it.

[beerguy55]

Call it 30 days - 30 days after the last contribution archive/lock it.

If someone sees something of interest in an old post, or something that raises a question, they can open a new thread - it should probably be a new discussion anyway.

[The Man in Blue]

13 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

but if it's been discussed ad nauseum, then yes, ...it can be 'dumb' because it's X years old

Hyperbole with a point ... 

New officials are dumb because they should just already know things.  

You should never open a rulebook because it was written years ago.

No point of view should ever be different than what was said in the past.

 

[Thunderheads]

6 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Hyperbole with a point ... 

New officials are dumb because they should just already know things.  

You should never open a rulebook because it was written years ago.

No point of view should ever be different than what was said in the past.

 

I'm just saying that there ARE CERTAINLY INSTANCES where something can be shut down.  Remember, ad nauseum means it's been discussed SO MANY TIMES IN OTHER PLACES throughout the website.  My post wasn't pertaining to ALL old posts ......just some

[Mudisfun]

On 11/21/2019 at 10:33 AM, maven said:

I'm not sure which was more boring, my response, or yours. 

[The Man in Blue]

Nope ... too long to respond to that ...