Yawwwn - dead threads.

The vast majority of the cases you're referring to actually find the threads via an external search engine, not LQ's. That said: 1) There is a limit on search terms on the internal search and 2) You should be seeing *much* less spam recently here at LQ, as some changes/additions have been highly effective.

--jeremy

Originally Posted by jeremy The vast majority of the cases you're referring to actually find the threads via an external search engine, not LQ's.

That makes sense. Thanks.

Originally Posted by dugan I'm opposed to this proposal. There are legitimate reasons for responding to old threads.

++1

Not to flog the horse continuously, I was ready to post yet another variation of complaint/question/suggestion, and did a search in the feedback forum to find this conversation.

This other thread http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...-files-139554/ was raised up this morning and I evaluated it. Went all the way back to the beginning to determine what the original problem was and noticed that the OP never had returned. Then I began to notice the timestamps, 2004, 2007, 2009-2011. "How to run an executable file" I mean ... helpful as archive? Yes.

The present person to resurrect it did so as their first post.

I fully get that they were shown the graphical warning about resurrecting an old post, but they still did so and they're new, they may be a fine eventual contributor.

It's unclear whether or not they were asking a question, see reply #32.

Not sure if there are things in there versus not and for some it would go against the grain in a major way, plus cause extra work for someone. But maybe the first few posts of a new user could be entirely moderated (I think Stack Overflow does exactly that) so as a result, a poor judgment posting can be stopped from perpetuating the resurrection of a very old thread, or also stop spam.

Originally Posted by rtmistler The present person to resurrect it did so as their first post. I fully get that they were shown the graphical warning about resurrecting an old post, but they still did so and they're new, they may be a fine eventual contributor. It's unclear whether or not they were asking a question, see reply #32.

A first post which is pretty much a complete non-sequitur: %99 chance of spam bot.

Automatically lock threads that haven't had a reply in X days (2 years?)

Or for all the complainers out there.... meh! live with the fact that some people are just plain dumb and ignore messages! :P :P

Maybe a compromise? Any new post to a thread older than a set time will need to reviewed by a moderator before it gets posted?

I guess it depends on how often someone resurrects a thread. If it's a common occurrence, I don't think we should expect the mods to manually filter through all of them. On the other hand, if it only happens 1 or 2 times a week, it seems like a more reasonable proposition. Stickies should probably be exempt from this, like the Linux vs Windows thread.

And then there's that lightbulb thread that keeps popping up...

Just my

Some forums display a big red message when replying to an old thread while still allowing it. Maybe that's
an idea?

Originally Posted by smeezekitty Some forums display a big red message when replying to an old thread while still allowing it. Maybe that's an idea?

For old threads the quick reply is completely disabled and there's a large bold red message that says "Please note that this thread has not been replied to in over 6 months. Please ensure your reply is still relevant and timely".

--jeremy

Originally Posted by jeremy For old threads the quick reply is completely disabled and there's a large bold red message that says "Please note that this thread has not been replied to in over 6 months. Please ensure your reply is still relevant and timely". --jeremy

Oh. I guess I didn't realize it because I generally don't try to reply to old threads.

Originally Posted by jeremy For old threads the quick reply is completely disabled and there's a large bold red message that says "Please note that this thread has not been replied to in over 6 months. Please ensure your reply is still relevant and timely". --jeremy

Sure but what I'm talking about is a thread resurrected by someone's first post. So they don't know the rules too well. And that thread was re-resurrected 3 or 4 times over a 10 year period.

Originally Posted by rtmistler Sure but what I'm talking about is a thread resurrected by someone's first post.

Maybe make it a requirement to have 10 or so posts before you're allowed to resurrect a thread?

How about including a nice red message in the post itself so that the next person who reads the thread is made aware of the resurrection?

Originally Posted by rknichols How about including a nice red message in the post itself so that the next person who reads the thread is made aware of the resurrection?

+1, some sort of visual indication of this event would be Good Thing.

Originally Posted by maples Maybe make it a requirement to have 10 or so posts before you're allowed to resurrect a thread?

Good idea