Adjustments to the forum

[Dilan Rona]

Have old posts older than say 12 months automatically locked to prevent new replies. Should anything need to be added to an old post, have the person make a new post, and reference the older post.

[Michael Gates]

hang on, gotta set up an alarm in my phone for 2029... (but yeah, the massive necro-ing is a bother)

[Thorfinn]

I don't mind it at all. Most of the time, I can see one of the OG said what I was thinking, and just go on about my day. It does, at least, show that the person doing the necro put in at least a little effort to see whether that particular thing has been covered...

[Steel General]

What in the world is wrong with old posts? It strikes me as a very weird bias to have.

Discussions are not trophies, and they're not over. We keep old topics around for the same reason we can make new ones.

... and for the love of convenience, use them instead of making new ones on the same subject. Read them and you might find out your new post would have been no contribution at all.

[gogeode]

On 4/28/2025 at 10:05 AM, Steel General said:

What in the world is wrong with old posts? It strikes me as a very weird bias to have.

Discussions are not trophies, and they're not over. We keep old topics around for the same reason we can make new ones.

... and for the love of convenience, use them instead of making new ones on the same subject. Read them and you might find out your new post would have been no contribution at all.

While I don't particularly agree with this idea, the last bit isn't going to be affected as what he meant is that the posts would still be there to be read, just wouldn't be able to be commented on so it can still be checked for when your question has already been asked and answered.

[LadyWYT]

I think the general aggravation about necro posts is that they shove fresh topics to the wayside, and I'd also assume that's why many forums have rules against necroing posts. @gogeode is right, in that the old threads would still be available for the reading(unless deleted for some reason), so that's not really an issue. But if a thread hasn't seen any new posts in a year then I wouldn't exactly call it part of a productive discussion anymore.

On 4/28/2025 at 10:05 AM, Steel General said:

... and for the love of convenience, use them instead of making new ones on the same subject. Read them and you might find out your new post would have been no contribution at all.

I mean...it would be really nice if posts were kept to a single relevant thread that already covers said topic, but given how often we see the same things posted in Suggestions, for example? How many new bird suggestions a week, instead of posting in a pre-existing thread suggesting the same thing? I think it's easier to just lock really old threads, instead of trying to corral everything into its own special mega-thread. That way the fresh discussion stays at the top.

[Steel General]

Why would anyone who had something to post go looking in places where they can't post? All the hassle of searching a forum and clicking through old topics to see if something is relevant, and I can't post in it?  Not a chance: I'm making a new topic, every time. We might as well delete all the old stuff if we're gonna close it, because the only thing it'll ever be used for is snarky linking.

17 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

I think the general aggravation about necro posts is that they shove fresh topics to the wayside

So do fresh topics. The dozenth 'But Birds!' is not more deserving of being kept than any old post.

17 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

given how often we see the same things posted in Suggestions, for example?

People have bad habits concerning others' attention, and eventually this will be addressed in public schools; for now, facile self-serving fools are inevitable, and we must learn to use forums in spite of their 'contributions'.

I have posts with no replies, and posts where I hope to someday get better replies. It would not help my goal or the community's use of the forum if I post 'bump' on them once a month to make sure they don't get locked. It is just fine if people who are interested can find them and continue the discussion after they someday find this community.

Valuing discussion by its freshness is a bad habit we are being taught by badly designed social media interfaces. Resist.

It would be of value to have pinned threads in which past discussions are summarized, but someone would have to curate that... and new people would have to see the merit of looking at it to solve the problem that has been identified in this thread.

To be clear, the solution I'm offering is "get good". Forums are hard to use well - don't lower their usefulness to meet expectations of new arrivals.

[Dilan Rona]

imo, replying to a topic that is 12 months old would be tolerable. 2 years old would be pushing it. By the time a topic had a reply 4 years ago, is going to far then.

Edited May 1, 2025 by Dilan Rona
Clarifying my comment better.