Poll: Should Inactive Discussion Topics be Locked?

Periodically, we see a response to an old, discussion topic on cpaptalk that has been inactive for a long time.

It seems to me that it would be beneficial if old discussion topics that have not had a response for some time should be locked so that no further replies are possible. This would prevent old, inactive topics from being resurrected, and it should simplify the day-to-day discussion in the forum. Let sleeping dogs lie, so to speak.

I suggest that all discussion topics be locked when there have been no responses posted after a specified period time with no responses. I'm open to discussion about how long a topic needs to be inactive before it is locked. However, for the purposes of this discussion I suggest that it be set at about 60 days. Very few ongoing topics go this long without a response to it. Please post how long you think it should be before a topic is locked.

Locked topics would still be accessible and readable, but readers simply would not have the option of posting a reply to it.

Where a re-start of an old topic might be desired, a user could start a new topic, possibly with the same title, and could connect the two by providing a link back to the original. All of this likely can be provided automatically in software.

What do readers think of this? Should old, inactive discussion topics be locked?

I think 60 days is too short a time but I do agree. Most of the old old threads lately were re-activated by spammers

BlackSpinner wrote:I think 60 days is too short a time but I do agree. Most of the old old threads lately were re-activated by spammers

So how many days do you think it should be? 120? 180? 365?


For those who think inactive threads should not be locked, care to share your reasons why?

Hose_Head wrote: For those who think inactive threads should not be locked, care to share your reasons why?

1. New information pertinent to the topic becomes available.
2. New insight on an old topic.
3. New user has a question on an old topic.

Why have 20 threads on a single subject ONLY because there was a xx-day lapse in comments? There is already too much fragmentation.

As to spammers: So they "revive" a topic. If no one else has anything to say, it will work its way back to oblivion within a day or two. Does that REALLY inconvenience anyone so much? The recent problems weren't so much the "spammers". It was ordinary users who kept feeding the trolls...

Locking old posts will not stop spam nor trolls. They'd simply post in newer threads.

I'm not bothered by old topics coming back up. If the subject is something I'm interested in, I might learn something from the thread that I wouldn't have otherwise seen. If it doesn't interest me...

I just ignore the thread. It's actually pretty easy to do.

Sorry, but this would be absurd.......including requiring another level of wasted time for the administrators. There are many worthwhile threads that get resurrected from time to time (although some have been resurrected by spam bots) and renew previous (and sometimes substantive) discussions. Keep in mind that there are almost no "new" subjects discussed on the forum.......a little searching will provide answers and/or previous discussions from the archives.

Besides......how is "rested gal" supposed to edit and update her previous posts with all the links to the categories of recurring discussions? That should be a reminder that there are virtually no new subjects.

I know.......I get a little exasperated when I see some weird reply to a two to five year old post.......but it may renew some discussions and answer questions on those topics. What's wrong with that?


Den

I pretty much agree with Link and BernieRay and now Wulman because of what they say.

I don't think they should be locked. I agree that there have been a lot of good reasons already posted. The only thing that I can think of that might be a good compromise is that if there was a way to prompt that a thread is old when someone tries to post to it. Something like "Warning! This post has been inactive for 1 year. Do you still want to post a reply?" That way, the poster could decide if they indeed wanted to revive an old thread or not (if they didn't realize it was old).

Y'all sure are anxious to spend Johnny's money making changes!

How come we never see blank checks attached to these suggestions for "improvements"?

Hey, I have no problem with the way things are! I was just offering an alternative to the locking.

When I was new to the forum I was so hungry for information I read many of the old posts. I learned alot from those posts and would hate to think if I had questions I would not be allowed to ask.

Many of the "new" topics aren't really new, but have already been discussed --- so why not let people ask their questions on an old thread if they stumble across it.

sleepycarol wrote:When I was new to the forum I was so hungry for information I read many of the old posts. I learned alot from those posts and would hate to think if I had questions I would not be allowed to ask.

Many of the "new" topics aren't really new, but have already been discussed --- so why not let people ask their questions on an old thread if they stumble across it.

There's NOTHING in the proposal that would prevent anyone from asking anything. It's just that you'd need to bring it forward as a new discussion topic. You could link the new discussion topic back to the old one, if desired.

LinkC wrote:Y'all sure are anxious to spend Johnny's money making changes!

How come we never see blank checks attached to these suggestions for "improvements"?

Blank cheque? No way. However, I have supported Johnny by purchasing supplies and an xpap from his "store".

If money to support the forum were an issue, I suspect Johnny would let us know.

jbn3boys wrote:I don't think they should be locked. I agree that there have been a lot of good reasons already posted. The only thing that I can think of that might be a good compromise is that if there was a way to prompt that a thread is old when someone tries to post to it. Something like "Warning! This post has been inactive for 1 year. Do you still want to post a reply?" That way, the poster could decide if they indeed wanted to revive an old thread or not (if they didn't realize it was old).

This is an excellent suggestion and as an alternative to locking of old discussion topics.

Pugsy wrote:I pretty much agree with Link and BernieRay and now Wulman because of what they say.

Ditto.