DnvrFox

Should 50+ Threads be Closed After a Period of Inactivity?

Every now and then we have an old thread "revived" by someone who has found it on a search, or whatever. Some of these are years old.

Often, the OP is no longer posting to the 50+ forum, along with other now missing posters, and some of the viewpoints expressed by other posters no longer represent their current views.

I propose that 50+ threads automatically be closed to further input after 3 months of inactivity of the thread.

The potential "reviver" has the option of starting a new thread if they really have an interest in the topic.

What say you?

Yes, it is a boring evening on a day I didn't get to ride, and more snow is coming in.

Floyd

I'd say go for it... most threads are so dusty after that long any way that most would not remeember they are here...

Thumpic

+1.....I'm a newbie and have hit several dead threads through searches..........

Dchiefransom

It's the 50+ Forum. Maybe the threads just nodded off for a bit..................

Prosody

I say: Close the thread only after the people who posted during the first two days are all dead

Honestly, a ghost from the past every once in awhile builds character.

Tom Bombadil

Note that closing a thread would not delete it, it would only prevent someone from finding a thread that was active in say 2005, and then posting a new message to it, bringing it back to the top of the active threads list. All closed threads would still show up in searches.

I know DNVR knows this.

I don't care one way or the other. There can be good reasons to revive an old thread, if someone has read through it and wants to ask a new question based on the info there. But more often than not, that is not how it happens.

Being an ardent free speecher, I'm usually opposed to closing, moving, or deleting threads as a matter of principle. Which is one (out of many) reason why I've never served as a moderator of an on-line forum.

megaman

Dnvr, I like your thoughts on this. I say do it.

DnvrFox

I'm amazed anyone bothered to respond!

You all must be bored, too.

Red Rider

Digital Gee

Who cares if the OP is no longer posting? Obviously the NP thought it was worth talking about. I say let's not worry about it.

DnvrFox

Sounds like IT talk to me.

megaman

I haven't been able to ride in almost a month. Still too much snow and ice on the roads. More coming this weekend.

BlazingPedals

I say, we need a poll! Or, we can let DG decide.

Digital Gee

What would Ron Paul do?

RockyMtnMerlin

Abolish the United Nations?

mud

Could this be an old thread that has been resurrected? I can't remember, I think this thread should be closed!
Mud

farandaway

I recently posted a question and was told that the question had been addressed ad nausium in previous threads, and that I should refer to them. Can't have it both ways. If you don't want people to revive old threads, don't refer them to old threads.

Jet Travis

I'll get back to you in a few months.

CrossChain

Jet....I thought you had nodded off for the winter. Given the median age here, by the time an older post comes around again, it all seems new to some of us. I was surprized that jppe had ridden another century much like an earlier one and that darned cobbler place was still not open. Then I realized..........

maddmaxx 

Closing threads is a lot like moving threads to other forums.........it smacks of outside interference.........like some big brother looking over my shoulder, opening my mail or listening in on my phone calls.............................oh.......................never mind.

Beverly

While we're on the subject of 50+ threads.....how about starting a new thread for weight-loss in 2008? It's tough trying to find the current posts amongst all the older posts.

Now we can discuss old threads, long threads, dead threads, etc

Sorry about the snow, Dnvr. We're supposed to have sunshine and 48F tomorrow morning. Looks like a nice Friday morning ride to the coffeehouse.

DnvrFox

Why are you asking me? Go ahead and start any thread you like!

I might get a ride in today, between meetings. Here's hoping! Snow not coming until tomorrow.

BSLeVan

Since I'm someone who refereed to an old thread to help deal with a current discussion, and, Dnvr, you responded to the action by pointing out that it was an old thread and the OP was no longer posting, I feel I have an interest in this.

First, let me say that I think there are some old threads that are so memorable, that it's not a stretch to see how they can appropriately fit into a current discussion. Second, I believe the real issues is that of folks not reading carefully. That is, the date of the original post was visible, yet there were those who thought it was current. Personally, I know I don't always read every post or thread as carefully as I should, and don't find it particularly offensive that others share the same human trait. With all this said, I suggest that the need, desire, or even idea that old threads be closed, suggests that folks aren't capable of making up their own minds about what they'll read or respond to and might need someone else to decide for them. This is a suggestion that I do find offensive. I suspect that Dnvr does not intend to be offensive, and as he himself noted, boredom was a factor in his bringing up the issue.

solveg

I didn't even know it was bad form to resurrect old threads. In fact, I thought it polite. Like, if DG decides to go clipless again, I would have thought it was nice to have the old thread resurrected so we all wouldn't need to check in again....

There's a strange thread on C/V about Ross bicycles. It's really interesting, with people who were involved with the bikes back in the day posting about the history. About every 3 months, someone adds to it. It's a gold mine thread for someone who wants to know about Ross bikes.

DnvrFox

I don't mean to be offensive - I just naturally come by that characteristic.

Actually, I was totally bored, and I just saw one more resurrected thread (not the one to which you had posted) in which I had made a statement that I would no longer support, yet someone reading the thread and not noting the date, would not be aware it was old stuff, particularly after a few "new" threads sent the old thread dates into the background.

I guess my hope is that folks DO take a look at the thread dates they find in searches, and if it is an old thread, leave it be and start a brand new and interesting thread, unless there is some particular reason for resurrecting it - such as a thread on a vintage bike, or a particular cross country trip. If they do, please note in the "resurrection" that fact.

This is one of the reasons I set all my (many) polls to "expire" after 30 days. I just don't want things dragging on forever.