suggestion: don't allow members of "newbie" status to reply to old threads

Due to a recent influx of very old threads being revived in the Programming forum, I suggest that when members are "newbie" they're disallowed from responding to a thread that would otherwise bear the warning:

Please note that this thread has not been replied to in over 6 months. Please ensure your reply is still relevant and timely.

Waiting until post 31 isn't a lot to ask, and it will bring to new members' attentions that providing an answer to a question several years old usually doesn't help anyone.
Kevin Barry

Having inadvertently replied to some old threads that others inadvertently brought back to life, I wouldn't seeing a blanket warning, perhaps worded a little more gently, maybe something like

This thread has been inactive for at least [some number] months. Are you sure you want to resurrect it?

I have found that, when browsing threads, it's easy to get snagged by the subject and content and miss the fine print.

Originally Posted by frankbell Having inadvertently replied to some old threads that others inadvertently brought back to life, I wouldn't seeing a blanket warning, perhaps worded a little more gently, maybe something like

There is a blanket warning already; for me it shows up just as I've posted, right above the text box.

In Programming at least, you can only find old threads via search results; therefore, it might also be helpful to put an indicator on search results such as a different color or a skeleton or something. When viewing threads in the forum itself, a dead give-away is an absurd "view" count. In Programming that's anything over a thousand.
Kevin Barry

Originally Posted by ta0kira There is a blanket warning already; for me it shows up just as I've posted, right above the text box.

I guess I need to make an appt. with my eye dr.

I just got kicked by an old (real old) thread I posted to. First-time (Windoze) poster bumping a dead thread ... d'oh

Personally I think old threads should be locked. jeremy doesn't agree ... BTDT

Originally Posted by ta0kira Waiting until post 31 isn't a lot to ask, and it will bring to new members' attentions that providing an answer to a question several years old usually doesn't help anyone.

It might also further encourage posting "blank" posts, or posts whose only meaning is to add to the post count. I understand this is already happening in some cases, as posts seem to exist whose message is simply "I had to post this because otherwise the forum does not allow me to [do something]." I'd rather see another kind of solution than post count limits. A warning should be sufficient. If old posts were completely unusable, they could be deleted automatically; yet they are not. This is because (I think) the idea of this site is to keep information available, and that means "old" information as well.

Of course another possibility is to disable newbies from answering old threads (or lock them) and then have them re-create similar or identical threads because that's what they can do. I don't think this helps either.

Originally Posted by syg00 Personally I think old threads should be locked.

+1. To me the only question is how old threads should get before they are locked.

Originally Posted by b0uncer Of course another possibility is to disable newbies from answering old threads (or lock them) and then have them re-create similar or identical threads because that's what they can do. I don't think this helps either.

In most cases I've seen the new post either addresses posters of old posts (e.g. asks for clarification), provides a solution to OP's problem, or asks a question regarding a similar problem. The first two cases probably wouldn't result in new threads if they were denied new posts, whereas the third case should result in a new thread.

There was a waking of one of my own threads from maybe 6 years ago where the poster asked for my code for a school project. I'd been on an "LQ hiatus" for about a year, so I missed the post by several months. Just an anecdote...

I don't think threads should be deleted, but it might be a good idea to lock them. For one, I pretty much ignore new threads asking questions that have been answered hundreds of times; I don't want there to be an actual reason to ask the same questions over and over.
Kevin Barry

I counted 26 zombie threads (over a year old) in Programming active in the last month (out of about 400 total). There might be more; I only looked at the dates for threads with more than 1000 views.
Kevin Barry

I've been guilty of accidentally contributing to a few revived threads lately. Somewhere in the system of warnings and advisories (to which I've apparently been oblivious), it might make sense to point to the Zero-Reply pages, so people have a clue where to look for threads that are more current. Maybe this could become part of the stock answers that mods post when pointing out the revival of zombie threads.

--- rod.

Originally Posted by theNbomr Maybe this could become part of the stock answers that mods post when pointing out the revival of zombie threads.

I've also accidentally posted to a few revived threads recently. I suggested the "newbie" restriction because I don't think the people reviving zombie threads have been around the boards long enough to have seen it happen. I don't recall seeing any zombies revived by people with more than 10 posts recently.

Maybe locking is the answer, with a "Cite" button in place of "Reply" or "Quote" after locking happens.
Kevin Barry

There are chances, even if a thread is very old, some updated information might be helpful if it gets posted.
Having said that, the lock option can be made available to the thread creator. That sounds more appropriate. [Solved] & locked

As I've stated in the past we have no plans to close old threads, solved or otherwise. We constantly tell new members to search before they post. Presenting them with a list of closed threads doesn't seem like a quality outcome. The Quick Reply is disabled for all old threads and there is a huge red disclaimer that notes the threads age. I'm open to additional ideas on how we can stop accidental posting to old threads, but removing the ability altogether is not an option.

--jeremy

So i am a NewBee on this site. i read the rules .. pritty few and simple .. und broke this unwritten one rigth away.
Why do you think ? YES thats it, cause its an unwritten one.
Rules of this type should naturly be written on that welcome page.
And if you think no one get helped by updates of old threads, then i wonder why you keep them. No really i dont.
Most people searches old forums first before starting new ones, as it should be and this site recommends.
So anything whitch only makes the answers clearer or better should be alowed. The rules could/should tell us new users not to put questions in old forums that is understandable and makes sence.
Just look at this forum, not new, but still fills it purpose... or do you want to lock it ?
And think so much happier new members will feel when they can follow written rules and dont get jumped because the dont follow unwritten ones.

Still a very nice site :-')
Johan

Hogdahl,
welcome to LQ. I'll re-post what I posted in that thread, for reference:

Actually, in cases like this I think what Hogdahl did was acceptable. The topic in question really isn't time sensitive and someone finding this thread via Google could certainly benefit from the answer provided.

--jeremy