Should threads that lie dormant be closed?

Should threads that lie dormant be closed?

Or would that push canoes into active threads...   

Inquiring minds want to know.

I see the benefit and understand the goal but as an example, I have build threads that go back 6 years that still get reasonably updated.  

Sure, threads could be reopened with some help but that could get burdensome.  Instead, I expect we'll get many small and fragmented threads.  Sure, some threads could be kept open but those threads will be the sole targets of the same thing you want to eliminate.  

Somehow, I take these spam-revived threads as a little trip down memory lane.  The best advice I have is to be mindful of the dates on threads before jumping straight in thinking it is current.  

No.  The canoe problem should be addressed at the source:  account creation

In reply to ProDarwin :

I'm open to ideas on that front. Right now, creating an account requires completing a captcha and verifying your email address. We already have a significant number of new users who struggle with those hurdles. 

No. What real benefit does it create?

Could you make it to where threads go "dormant" after 90 days of no posts.   Then only allow users with accounts older then 90 days to post in dormant threads?   I realize the biggest issue with this is occasionally legit humans with human like features and the ability to identify the trains in these 15 images sometimes join the forum specifically because they found some old thread and have a new question.  I wouldn't want to discourage the spreading of the good word of the GRM forum but it may be a small price to pay for an enhanced zombie floatilla protection.  

Tom Suddard said:

In reply to ProDarwin :

I'm open to ideas on that front. Right now, creating an account requires completing a captcha and verifying your email address. We already have a significant number of new users who struggle with those hurdles. 

Understood.  It HAS to be easy to get in or people won't come here.  *sigh*

If only the source of the spam could be ...  Spammed...

I wonder if this old thread from 2013 being revived via spam (since deleted) is what brought this topic up.  

An interesting note as I read over this 1.5 page thread of a trivial nature.  At least 4 posters in that thread have since passed away:
CHW
Doctor Blade
Hal
Curmudgeon

Some who posted there we don't see much any more and others are still around regularly.  

No.

I constantly refer back to really old threads just based off of a searchable line or two. There's just too much good info here to build upon.

Tom Suddard said:

In reply to ProDarwin :

I'm open to ideas on that front. Right now, creating an account requires completing a captcha and verifying your email address. We already have a significant number of new users who struggle with those hurdles. 

That's really a problem in this day and age?

Tom Suddard said:

In reply to ProDarwin :

I'm open to ideas on that front. Right now, creating an account requires completing a captcha and verifying your email address. We already have a significant number of new users who struggle with those hurdles. 

I'm not opposed to raising the bar.  If you are struggling with those things, I dont know what to say.  Would login via google account/facebook/whatever simplify anything?

You could also have admin approval.

Require a post in a certain intro thread and a 24hr waiting period before being released into the wild.

Have a "trick" question or two that must be answered.

etc.

Assuming by "closed" you mean that they'd still be searchable and readable but you wouldn't be able to post any new comments after the thread sat for X number of days since the last post?

I could see some logic in making it such that only the thread starter could make a new post in a closed thread which would then re-open it.  Or maybe anyone who had posted in that thread previously could post-to-reopen.

What about requiring that the first post made by a new user be locked until reviewed by a moderator and disallowing a second post by that user until the first one is approved?  I'm guessing that there is absolutely no logic in the application to have a comment that is present in a thread but not visible, though, so that's probably a fairly heavy lift.

wae said:

Assuming by "closed" you mean that they'd still be searchable and readable but you wouldn't be able to post any new comments after the thread sat for X number of days since the last post?

This is the way stack exchange and other sites that have a problem/resolution type flow work.  They are terrible.  

Tom Suddard said:

In reply to ProDarwin :

I'm open to ideas on that front. Right now, creating an account requires completing a captcha and verifying your email address. We already have a significant number of new users who struggle with those hurdles. 

I realize that moderators have enough to do, so having the first 3 or 5 posts by a new member being moderator approved is a non-starter.

*edit* Reading that, some of my posts should probably be approved before being listed...

Maybe limit the starting of new threads to one or two a day for the first few weeks? That won't stifle new members, but won't allow canoes who snuck in under the radar to rapid fire spam post 30 new threads in the middle of the night.

I don't think so. There's so much good info in old threads that can be built upon later with more knowledge. I don't know about solving the canoe problem, the admins/mods seem to do a pretty amazing job hunting all that down.

I see a lot of builds things *cough* mine *cough* that don't get updated regularly enough that might meet that dormant criteria. I'd feel dumb making a new thread every time. Although, I think corner-carvers.com really cemented that mindset.

Now if the search function could be streamlined...that'd be greeeaaaat. Actually, if the search function just left out anything from the "My comments" section.

RevRico said:

Tom Suddard said:

In reply to ProDarwin :

I'm open to ideas on that front. Right now, creating an account requires completing a captcha and verifying your email address. We already have a significant number of new users who struggle with those hurdles. 

That's really a problem in this day and age?

I can tell you don't deal with the general public all that much...

ProDarwin said:

Tom Suddard said:

In reply to ProDarwin :

I'm open to ideas on that front. Right now, creating an account requires completing a captcha and verifying your email address. We already have a significant number of new users who struggle with those hurdles. 

I'm not opposed to raising the bar.  If you are struggling with those things, I dont know what to say.  Would login via google account/facebook/whatever simplify anything?

 

You could also have admin approval.

Require a post in a certain intro thread and a 24hr waiting period before being released into the wild.

Have a "trick" question or two that must be answered.

etc.

The bold line above would help immensely IMO. Having to post an intro in a welcome thread in order to be granted full access to post on the forum.

Not sure how difficult that would be to implement, but if simple its worth a try.

I think all the suggested solutions would be worse than the problem.

I don't know what the interface is for admins, but I imagine it's probably not much harder to nuke a spam account than it is to approve an account. I imagine spam accounts are a pretty small minority, and so vetting and approving everything will be more work, and won't keep all the canoes out anyway.

Now... if it's possible to implement a protocol that only allows a user to create a maximum number of threads in a span of time - say, no more than 3 new threads per hour - that would wipe out one of the most obnoxious and egregious types of spam without really impacting any legit users.

Beer Baron said:

Now... if it's possible to implement a protocol that only allows a user to create a maximum number of threads in a span of time - say, no more than 3 new threads per hour - that would wipe out one of the most obnoxious and egregious types of spam without really impacting any legit users.

Problem is that for the last two weeks, all they do is revive all threads. They do not create new ones.

In reply to Slippery :

You've missed the pages of Indian phone sex threads then. 

The mod team is fairly on top of things unless you're on between like 3-6am EST. 

Keith Tanner said:

RevRico said:

Tom Suddard said:

In reply to ProDarwin :

I'm open to ideas on that front. Right now, creating an account requires completing a captcha and verifying your email address. We already have a significant number of new users who struggle with those hurdles. 

That's really a problem in this day and age?

I can tell you don't deal with the general public all that much...

I don't, because I hate people and try to spend as little time around them as possible. But if you can't use a captcha or verify an email, how can you do anything on the internet? The forums issue with Yahoo mail not withstanding, though I do question people still using Yahoo and aol email addresses. 

I don't see spam as an issue, and am on here quite a bit.

Also agree that there is a ton of value in older threads...which also seem to show up pretty frequently in google results these days.

Yeah, older and less tech savvy people still struggle with capcha, but I like reading what some of our older posters have to say. Don't increase the barriers to entry to a pretty awesome place just because there is occasionally some spam.

I fail to see why the closing of  old threads should be done.

 If you don't want to read old threads with new material added just keep scrolling until you find a topic you like.

In so that when this thread gets bumped up by a canoe in five years I'll see my post lol.