Since the update to the new forum software, many users have been taking avantage of the fact threads don't automatically lock after 2 weeks of inactivity (I think in the less busy forums it was 4 weeks). Some of these posts are relevant and make sense; others are fairly off topic and would be better in their own threads. For those who don't notice the time stamp right away, they might mistake an old thread for being recent, and lead to confusion.

One option would be to automatically lock threads after a certain period, but that might prevent some worthwhile posts being added and need a new thread. So instead I would like to suggest that for threads where the last reply has been greater than a certain period ago (6 months seems reasonable), making a new post in the thread requires moderator approval in the same manner as has been implemented for new users making their first post. Where it isn't approved, the user should be advised to start a new thread. Is such a set-up possible?

V/F

VirginFlyer wrote:

Since the update to the new forum software, many users have been taking avantage of the fact threads don't automatically lock after 2 weeks of inactivity (I think in the less busy forums it was 4 weeks). Some of these posts are relevant and make sense; others are fairly off topic and would be better in their own threads. For those who don't notice the time stamp right away, they might mistake an old thread for being recent, and lead to confusion.

One option would be to automatically lock threads after a certain period, but that might prevent some worthwhile posts being added and need a new thread. So instead I would like to suggest that for threads where the last reply has been greater than a certain period ago (6 months seems reasonable), making a new post in the thread requires moderator approval in the same manner as has been implemented for new users making their first post. Where it isn't approved, the user should be advised to start a new thread. Is such a set-up possible?

V/F

10-4, Noted.

Do others have feedback, I would like to hear Crew and Community thoughts.

Jeff M

VirginFlyer wrote:

Since the update to the new forum software, many users have been taking avantage of the fact threads don't automatically lock after 2 weeks of inactivity (I think in the less busy forums it was 4 weeks). Some of these posts are relevant and make sense; others are fairly off topic and would be better in their own threads. For those who don't notice the time stamp right away, they might mistake an old thread for being recent, and lead to confusion.

One option would be to automatically lock threads after a certain period, but that might prevent some worthwhile posts being added and need a new thread. So instead I would like to suggest that for threads where the last reply has been greater than a certain period ago (6 months seems reasonable), making a new post in the thread requires moderator approval in the same manner as has been implemented for new users making their first post. Where it isn't approved, the user should be advised to start a new thread. Is such a set-up possible?

V/F

I like this idea. Just this week there was a reply to an 11 year old trip report, which I deleted. There is always the option when taking the approach as suggested above to link to the old threads once they are locked.

2c fwiw, I'm not a fan of threads being locked "just because" and much prefer discussion on a given topic to be contained to one thread. However there comes a point where the last post was so long ago that a fresh post has little relevance to the original discussion - SQ22s example above being a good, er, example. I support VFs suggestion of a 6 month time limit. I think any shorter than 6 months would be at risk of too many repetitive threads on the same discussion and it would keep the "slower" topics active.

AeroTyke wrote:

2c fwiw, I'm not a fan of threads being locked "just because" and much prefer discussion on a given topic to be contained to one thread. However there comes a point where the last post was so long ago that a fresh post has little relevance to the original discussion - SQ22s example above being a good, er, example. I support VFs suggestion of a 6 month time limit. I think any shorter than 6 months would be at risk of too many repetitive threads on the same discussion and it would keep the "slower" topics active.

I fully agre, the only problem is, but I think that is unavoidable, that we will have anyway repetitive threads, but here we have the option to merge threads, so its a non-brainer. My general impression is that the number of repetitive threads was increasing within the last year.