"Close" old threads?

No such thing as an old thread it is all knowledge use it hold it read it grow with it it. it is Linux

No such thing as an old thread it is all knowledge use it hold it read it grow with it it. it is Linux

That's not a good reason not to close on old thread though. It still remains albeit read-only. It's really to prevent people tacking on to an old thread (where the solutions may no longer be relevant), rather than asking/discussing again in a modern context.

I think some people are forgetting that the solution 10+ years ago to x,y or z technical problem may well be different today.

The "xorg.conf" config file is a prime example; yes around 10 or there about's years ago, editing that still would have applied to configuring video card's and alike. But today, it's really irrelevant and you could expect that the same config would be done automatically today with a modern distro (or through the GUI or similar). In addition, while it maybe some time before more distro's start to adopt Wayland, that is also coming and once it does, threads relating to X are going to be completely (or close to it) irrelevant.

Personally, if it's a problem somone's having today, then I'd still think it's far better that it's discussed in a new thread. The other thing is that, someone looking at a thread dated say "2003" may well still have a question as to whether whatever answers are in that thread, are still valid and current - which they once again may not be.

Originally Posted by ChuangTzu Perhaps, instead of closing old threads, they could be tagged as [OLD THREAD], similar to [Solved].

AGAINST. Because it collides with my own suggestion to allow modifications of the subject line by the OP to allow different “close” motifs than the current “Solved”, like: [Ignore], [For Later], [Works for me], etc... [All you want]. Although this would still allow a mark like [Old Thread], it should not be an argument, neither for-, nor against my own idea.

Or color code the subject area, if thats even possible.

Better. Provided we can agree on a specific color which must be imposed.

On closing old threads. A link to an old, -or any other- , thread is a powerful tool. If you ignore it in this discussion, you are deliberately concentrating on a way to change the way that LQ functions today while even the “penetration power” of the new functionality would be feeble in comparison to the existing possibilities.

Where's the beef?

Originally Posted by frankbell I also like ChuangTzu's suggestion. I was going to suggest a dialog popping up saying something like "This thread has been inactive for [unit time]. Are you sure you wish to continue?"

We have done this (in bold red even), in addition to disabling quick reply, for quite some time.

--jeremy

Originally Posted by Michael Uplawski Provided we can agree on a specific color which must be imposed.

you should start a new thread to discuss this.
(nope, not serious)

A middle ground approach could be to "require moderator approval" for new posts to old threads, similar to posting a new thread in the "News" section.

The supposed problem seems to have been fixed long ago.

Originally Posted by jeremy We have done this (in bold red even), in addition to disabling quick reply, for quite some time. --jeremy

So why is this discussion renewed every couple months? Necroposting is occasionally useful (updating threads with new information) and at worst is mildly annoying. Yet a few people are obsessed with "cleaning" the board by eliminating something most members do not consider a problem.

Perhaps the solution to the never ending reappearance of certain topics in the Suggestions and Feedback sub-forum is to create a few mega-threads: necroposting, bad behaviour by newbies, improving answers from veteran members, etc. That would allow people to continue discussing those topics without having to continuously create new threads.

We have done this (in bold red even), in addition to disabling quick reply, for quite some time.

Thanks. I guess I haven't opened an old thread for quite a while.

Originally Posted by Randicus Draco Albus ...So why is this discussion renewed every couple months? Necroposting is occasionally useful (updating threads with new information) and at worst is mildly annoying. Yet a few people are obsessed with "cleaning" the board by eliminating something most members do not consider a problem.

While everyone has a right to an opinion and I'm not suggesting otherwise;

1) I have not seen this being suggested "every couple of months". The last time I can see that it was, was on the 01-25-17, it's now the 4th of July 2018 in my timezone. That's not every "couple of months" or even close.

2) It "at worst being mildly annoying" is your opinion that doesn't seem to be shared by "most members".

3) Assuming that it's correct that it's just "a few members" (which from my reading does not seem to be the case), then by that definition; then "a few members" are also "obsessed" with suggesting things you don't feel are a problem. Should anyone that disagrees just shut up and go away then?

Perhaps the solution to the never ending reappearance of certain topics in the Suggestions and Feedback sub-forum is to create a few mega-threads: necroposting, bad behaviour by newbies, improving answers from veteran members, etc. That would allow people to continue discussing those topics without having to continuously create new threads.

So the answer in your mind to a "never ending reappearance of certain topics" is to have a never ending discussion about those same topics?

Should we also have rules about exactly which topics can and can't be discussed to begin with, that other members don't find to be "annoying" ?

Should we also have an official definition drafted as to what is and isn't "annoying" or indeed what can and can't be suggested ? (that some members won't take exception to)

That is a good job of conflating issues and dragging out the short sentiment that some people's opinions are only opinions and other people's opinions are facts.
The issue is very simple:
A few people keep resurrecting discussions about issues Jeremy has already answered and other members commented on.
The topics are resurrected in hopes of getting different answers and comments (agreeing with their view).
Repeat.

Thus, my suggestion for mega threads regarding those topics. So the answer to

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 So the answer in your mind to a "never ending reappearance of certain topics" is to have a never ending discussion about those same topics?

would be yes. How many times must Jeremy answer no and the majority of members either agree with him or remain ambivalent?

Should we also have rules about exactly which topics can and can't be discussed to begin with, that other members don't find to be "annoying" ?

How do make the jump from "funnel a certain discussion into a mega thread created for that topic" to "rules about what is and is not allowed?" That is illogical extrapolation hoping to make my idea sound bigger and menacing.

Should we also have an official definition drafted as to what is and isn't "annoying" or indeed what can and can't be suggested ? (that some members won't take exception to)

That's just a foolish comment and made for the same purpose as above: try to convince others that a suggestion is terrifying in its scope and intent through unrelated and illogical extrapolation.

if i was jeremy, i'd
a) point to existing solutions/decisions
b) lock the thread
alas, i'm not, and so i once more contributed to an endless discussion.

Originally Posted by Randicus Draco Albus That is a good job of conflating issues and dragging out the short sentiment that some people's opinions are only opinions and other people's opinions are facts. The issue is very simple:

You've actually misunderstood the point I was making quite badly. I know what the issue is, so there was actually no need to repeat yourself in the first place.

A few people keep resurrecting discussions about issues Jeremy has already answered and other members commented on. The topics are resurrected in hopes of getting different answers and comments (agreeing with their view). Repeat.

I see. So that's what everyone who happens to suggest something that been suggested before is trying to do? So you can read other members minds from a far can you? That's once again just your opinion and not proven fact.

Thus, my suggestion for mega threads regarding those topics. So the answer to would be yes. How many times must Jeremy answer no and the majority of members either agree with him or remain ambivalent?

I see. I really doubt that will achieve anything other than an endless discussion that resolves nothing. I think the other suggestions made by others would be far better than that. Either way, I'm glad I'm not Jeremy in that case - with all respect to him.

How do make the jump from "funnel a certain discussion into a mega thread created for that topic" to "rules about what is and is not allowed?" That is illogical extrapolation hoping to make my idea sound bigger and menacing.

That was in response the below quote:

Perhaps the solution to the never ending reappearance of certain topics in the Suggestions and Feedback sub-forum is to create a few mega-threads: necroposting, bad behaviour by newbies, improving answers from veteran members, etc. That would allow people to continue discussing those topics without having to continuously create new threads.

As in: how far would you like to go? Should Jeremy just delete the S&F forum or ban anyone who dares to suggest something that in your eyes doesn't represent a major problem?

That's just a foolish comment and made for the same purpose as above: try to convince others that a suggestion is terrifying in its scope and intent through unrelated and illogical extrapolation.

And the above only proves my point I was making before. You seem to get quite judgemental with members that question anything in your posts, I've gotten that same impression with a number of your posts, particularly in this S&F forum.

This is a prime example of what I'm talking about when I use the term "judgemental" in relation to other members:

Originally Posted by Randicus Draco Albus ...Yet a few people are obsessed with "cleaning" the board by eliminating something most members do not consider a problem.

I'm really not trying to be smart or nit-pick, but is there any reason as to why you feel the need to make such statements?

Particularly accusing other members of being "obsessed" and casting that sort of judgement? Do you really need to say that to make your point?

That's what I'm talking about. I can understand you saying something like "I agree with such and such about whatever" or, "I disagree with such and such about whatever" or even "I think people are forgetting such and such whatever", but when you have make statements like above instead of just speaking to the issue(s) at hand, it almost (if not) seems at least a tad passive-aggressive type of behaviour to me.

Note: I'm not saying this as an insult, it doesn't bother me if you (or anyone else) takes a different view to the subject at hand, that's not the issue. I'm also not trying to imply nor say that you have to be perfect or that I am either, before you misunderstand what I'm saying above - it's not about that either. The issue is "if threads should be automatically locked after a certain period of inactivity".

Originally Posted by ondoho if i was jeremy, i'd a) point to existing solutions/decisions b) lock the thread alas, i'm not, and so i once more contributed to an endless discussion.

What, and stifle this interesting debate?