Just ran across several threads that are more than 3 years old...can't we impose a time limit on posting to these mummies?

By all means, keep them around for search purposes...but _sheez_, I don't even keep tax records around as long <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Personally, I'd rather have an old thread re-awakened rather than a new thread created assuming the post is on-topic.

However, this is different from people posting to threads which have been broken up due to size.

In those cases I prefer the continuation thread be created including a link back to the original thread, and then a link created in the old thread pointing to the new thread, and the old thread locked.

Of course, I also prefer to be able to edit an old post I created indefinitely so that I can keep the links up to date, etc.

YMMV.

-john

Most other boards call it 'thread necromancy' and then proceed to jeer or yell at the person who pulled it 'back from the dead'.

I guess we're just a little more civil over on this board.

I started a thread in the Campfire section.
http://www.equipped.org/ubbthreads/showf...o=&vc=1

There have been a few old tired threads that should have been put to pasture long ago and along comes someone new and adds their 2 cents. The problem is that many of us have already waded through the thread long ago and would rather move on to new stuff.
Then there are the few who bump their old threads for their old self gratification. It's bad form a you know who you are.
"What is your EDC?" is "SO 2006".

Seriously, the EDC thread was already broken up into sections. The only thing it needed was someone to lock the first two parts.

And what's wrong with people adding to part III? I'd rather have that than have 30 darned EDC threads.

I think we are making this a lot more complicated than it needs to be.

-john

If one and two were locked that would have been much better.
Even the third was getting to be months old.
I must admit I personally find the what's you edc thing to be a bit silly. It may have been a little interesting a year or so ago but by now it is just boring.
So vouyeristic. Hey come look at my pocket lint......
Maybe it is just me. If so, shucks.

A lot of us are, anyway. While I've never hidden my doubts as to MrWilmoth's motives, I don't object to the concept of his threads but to the general creep that they have. What I do object to is having a thread that is over a year old and hasn't had a qualitive addition made to it months being "bump"ed when there are multiple parallel threads of a newer vintage. Particularly from the same poster and bumped as a group- that's just bad form.

I'd propose 30 days without additions, or 60 days from the initial post, is when the thread is automatically locked unless it is flagged not to by the moderators. I just don't know if UBB has that capability.

I don't see why we would automatically lock all old posts. Sometimes poeple have useful things to add to them. This just forces more posts.

It also prevents people from linking to the newer thread (if any).

Perhaps we need more moderators to all the more active moderation of the forums. This might be possible if more people volunteered for the job.

For example, to make sure that large unweildly threads get split, and to make sure that the older part of split threads get locked.

-john

I agree that threads like EDC part one and two should be locked. However, if a smaller thread gets revived with new information, it makes sense to me to add onto the old thread, that way all relevant information can be found in the same place. This was my reasoning in posting on the Folding Box Cutter thread that was several years old. However, I am new here and am more than willing to conform to the preferences of the many already existing members <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

heh heh...after losing a few thousand to the IRS my tax records now go back to 1990 <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> But I don't keep 'em in the house...think "suspended above cesspool, and certainly you're welcome to audit me" <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

All joking aside, the subject of "old threads":

Archived, yes. Allowed to post to, and bring back to life...I think there should be some sort of expiration date (like bad Aspirin, which smells vinegarish).

Maybe we need an FAQ for ETS, etc.

So, we gotta SMELL the threads now?!?!?!

Other forums I go to use different software and thus this problem of "ancient threads" being resurrected and bumped to the top is absent.

I second the locking of very old and very large threads, if only out of compassion for those folks who have a dial up connection.

It is perfectly acceptable to start a new thread and provide a link to the old one within your new post, i.e.: refer to the old thread without bumping it.

Personally I prefer newer threads with links to old threads. That is how we can have fresher threads with connections to other threads of same subjects Especially if threads become too long ( 3 or more pages each)

Having said that, I prefer leaving the whole thing to the market or nature or whatever, with NO control of any sort.

If some folks are ineterested in a subject, they keep it up and alive. If no one is interested in the thread, it will sink to the bottom on its own.

just my 2 cents