Necro-threads

[danb35]

If we were to do this it likely means people will make new threads that are exact duplicates of old threads to get new input.

I guess it's speculative either way, but I don't think so, at least not with great frequency, for a few reasons:

• A user with FreeNAS 9.10 who necros a 9.2 (or even 8.2) thread with a similar question is not an exact duplicate of the earlier thread, and the answer could be quite different.
• Often, the questions posted to resurrect these threads bear, at best, only a passing relationship to the original subjects.
• Often, threads are resurrected by posts that just add some information, which was the case in the thread that prompted me to start this one. That OP had asked a question (can you manage files through the web GUI). It had been answered (no, but here are ways to do it at the CLI--at the time, mc wasn't part of the FreeNAS package). Two years passed. Someone, for reasons known only to him, then replied to that thread with a method to use the find command to delete files past a certain age (which was the OP's goal). And though that post could have been useful to the OP if it had been made two years ago, it really isn't going to help anyone else--anyone searching for a way to delete files past a certain age isn't likely to click on a thread about a GUI for file management. If the Necromancer had posted that FreeNAS now includes mc, at least that would have been relevant to the question asked.

So, no, I don't think there's much chance that we'd end up with (lots of) threads that are exact duplicates of each other.

 

[Ericloewe]

From a purely selfish point of view, automatically locking threads will almost certainly lead to more moderator workload (particularly around threads that are expected to be active for long, such as Resource discussion threads).

Maybe we can start with the friendly automatic warning that the thread is old?

 

[JoshDW19]

We can prevent the plugin from running on certain sub-forums. Perhaps we have it run on all of the general forums and not on resource threads.

 

[Stux]

FWIW, and as a frequent necromancer, I'm against automatic locking.

 

[Ericloewe]

We can prevent the plugin from running on certain sub-forums. Perhaps we have it run on all of the general forums and not on resource threads.

But then we'd need a section specifically for those, since they're currently spread around. Where would that go?

 

[Robert Trevellyan]

Is there anyone that would like to argue against us automatically closing threads?

I'm not convinced it will offer a tangible benefit, but I don't feel strongly about it.

 

[Stux]

I'm not convinced it will offer a tangible benefit, but I don't feel strongly about it.

If you want to close threads automatically make it a realistic time frame, like 3 years.

Expecting all information on all topics to be done and dusted in 3 months is unrealistic and user hostile.

 

[Ericloewe]

A year seems more reasonable. I had barely started three years ago and that feels like an eternity.

 

[Stux]

A year seems more reasonable. I had barely started three years ago and that feels like an eternity.

Meet you in the middle at two ;)

 

[JoshDW19]

But then we'd need a section specifically for those, since they're currently spread around. Where would that go?

They could be categorized into one sub-forum. "Resource Discussion Threads" maybe. Regardless they can't be spread around if we want to be able to make the distinction that they can't be automatically closed.

 

[Jurgen Segaert]

From a purely selfish point of view, automatically locking threads will almost certainly lead to more moderator workload (particularly around threads that are expected to be active for long, such as Resource discussion threads).

Maybe we can start with the friendly automatic warning that the thread is old?

I like this idea. Also, I suspect a lot of of the creators and followers of some specific resource - & howto threads may not lurk around in the forums all the time, but instead have the "Watch thread and receive e-mail notifications" function turned on. When you force people to create new threads, these very people may never respond and the community will miss out.

 

[danb35]

Regardless they can't be spread around if we want to be able to make the distinction that they can't be automatically closed.

Does the plugin not allow disabling the auto-lock on a per-thread basis?

 

[Ericloewe]

Does the plugin not allow disabling the auto-lock on a per-thread basis?

Possibly, but the requirement for human interaction is the major cause of death for any process.

 

[JoshDW19]

Does the plugin not allow disabling the auto-lock on a per-thread basis?

Possibly, but the requirement for human interaction is the major cause of death for any process.

Yes, it would allow for disabling the auto-lock on a per thread basis. I second what Eric said. In my mind automation should be our end goal.

 

[Jailer]

I know this hasn't been commented on in a few months but I think it needs to be discussed further. There's been several nerco posts lately that do nothing to help the person posting in them. The latest one to be revived was almost 4 years old.

 

[Stux]

Necro!

 

[JoshDW19]

Necro!

lol...gottem ;). I believe I saw the threads you are talking about. The moderators are aggressively moderating necro-posts. If something adds value to an existing thread that's cool. However, posting across multiple threads with basically the same message gets annoying real quick and will be moderated.

 

[nightshade00013]

Mostly I am against locking old threads but that is due to there being threads that have great info which are still relevant that may not see a lot of use. Like the Murmur/mumble jail thread, I have used it once and said thanks and the install is still the same even though it was made in the 9.3 days circa 2014 but what if someone has seen a minor change with a later revision? Should a whole new thread/tutorial be made for that even though it may not have been posted on in forever?

I know it's work on the mods to deal with it all but we will have a TON of new posts dealing with old stuff with links basically doing the same reviving of necro's. We want people to use the search function and try to find a solution but sometimes either something changes or clarification is needed on old but still relevant data.

It just irks me when it the post was basically junk anyway and someone necro's it. Most of the time you will then see me post something like:

"The necro post award of the day winner is ___________"

And if the mods need some help I am sure a few of us will have no issues doing so. I personally don't have much going on most days.

 

[Tigersharke]

Mostly I am against locking old threads but that is due to there being threads that have great info which are still relevant that may not see a lot of use. Like the Murmur/mumble jail thread, I have used it once and said thanks and the install is still the same even though it was made in the 9.3 days circa 2014 but what if someone has seen a minor change with a later revision? Should a whole new thread/tutorial be made for that even though it may not have been posted on in forever?

I know it's work on the mods to deal with it all but we will have a TON of new posts dealing with old stuff with links basically doing the same reviving of necro's. We want people to use the search function and try to find a solution but sometimes either something changes or clarification is needed on old but still relevant data.

If it is a matter of people being too damned lazy to do any kind of search then there is really nothing we can do, the solution could be three inches from their face and those sorts of people might not care to see it. However, if it is due to whatever details or search terms or other associated bits that are either missing which either makes a search match too much or return no results, there are things we can probably do to improve this. I am not sure that the ability to add tags to posts is used enough. I believe I noticed something along the lines of having fields relating to new posts which could be created or appended to encourage more detail. The same for any sort of custom message (if this could be unique per forum) that would describe the details and characteristics of an easily searched-for/found post.

Aside from the above, it seems to be a tactic of spammers to post on any thread regardless of its age and their choice has nothing to do with the content of the post, only perhaps that it was listed on the page they encountered first. In the case of the PC-BSD forums page, there was a list on an initial page that had "top posts" or similar, and even when those became old and inactive, being unlocked and quickly seen meant they were the target of spammers. In which case the spammer caused a necro post. So at the PC-BSD forums site I mentioned to watch those specific "highlighted" posts for spam.

 

[Ericloewe]

I am not sure that the ability to add tags to posts is used enough.

Well, it's misused just about as often as it's not used. Clueless users often add random tags that do little to help any sort of search. Managing them is also a pain. They're barely visible when reading the forums, so they're out my sight and thus out of my mind, so I can't try to have them assigned properly to threads. It's incredibly painful to link several variations together (FreeNAS 11, freenas11, 11.x, ...) and that can only be done by admins.

The whole thing ends up discouraging even their proper use, since they feel like an exercise in futility, a random collection of individual words thrown around by someone in a narcissistic exercise to obtain some measure of ownership of banal concepts, done in lieu of actual work that is productive for society, which plays along and confers buoyancy in the form of validation, admiration and acceptance, degrading its own sustainability through this implicit support, which brings about explicit support, draining resources that are piped into the vanity of those who take advantage of this acephalous behavior for no purpose other than their parasitic desire to eschew societal development.