suggestion for admins

[bcousins]

hi folks,

i seem to have found a problem with ressurecting old threads.

my suggestion: auto lock after 12 months.

[Frances]

I agree that quite often (and not just on this board) old threads can be resurrected for no good reason whatsoever (I think I've done it myself a couple of times when I didn't look at the date of the previous post), but every now and then some new information comes to light, or a new forum member with an answer to an old unresolved question appears on the scene. Is it not better in those scenarios to resurrect the old thread rather than start the whole thing all over again?

Maybe threads in the Lunch Room should be locked once they have been inactive for 12 months (and the Where Is It? threads locked once a new one is started), but I think that the others should be left open.

[Andrew]

In the past when a very old thread has been resurected by someone making a 'nice photos" or similarly useless post, I have removed the message to send the thread back to its appropriate age range. However, if some significant new information comes to light, then it stays as it may generate additional worthwhile discussion. At the moment, the decision to leave "resurrected" threads lies with admins and moderators and I personally think we do a good job with it.

If you have any issue with a resurrected thread, please report it and one of us will see it and follow it up.

[Frances]

In the past when a very old thread has been resurected by someone making a 'nice photos" or similarly useless post, I have removed the message to send the thread back to its appropriate age range. However, if some significant new information comes to light, then it stays as it may generate additional worthwhile discussion. At the moment, the decision to leave "resurrected" threads lies with admins and moderators and I personally think we do a good job with it.

If you have any issue with a resurrected thread, please report it and one of us will see it and follow it up.

So long as the admins and moderators have the time to sort the wheat from the chaff, that would be the best way to deal with it. I don't think it's much of a problem on this board anyway.

[bcousins]

basically it was a suggestion to lock all USELESS posts after a period of time (I.E 12mths) if there is nothing being posted to it. thank you both for your time

[MetroTasCatcher]

franfran, you may recognise THIS topic: http://www.busaustralia.com/forum/viewt ... 28&t=18243

[Ken]

basically it was a suggestion to lock all USELESS posts after a period of time (I.E 12mths) if there is nothing being posted to it. thank you both for your time

What criteria would you suggest we use for determining which posts are "USELESS" and which posts aren't?

[bcousins]

Useless: ones that haven't been posted to in ages

[Ken]

If there was an option to automatically allow old threads to be locked I could do it, but unfortunately there is no option in the forum software to do it.

[shovelyjoe]

basically it was a suggestion to lock all USELESS posts after a period of time (I.E 12mths) if there is nothing being posted to it. thank you both for your time

Useless: ones that haven't been posted to in ages

As Andrew said, sometimes it may be warranted for a post to be made to a thread that hasn't been posted in for a long time. So locking every thread that hasn't been posted in for over 12 months may not be an ideal solution to stop users from making unnecessary posts in old threads.

[Fleet Lists]

A typical example of this was the one concerning the STA Parramatta depot which was resurrected correctly yesterday.

Just because they have not been used for a while does not make them useless.