Thread locked for being old?!

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Err, I found this confusing, troubling and just downright annoying:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php...5&postcount=47

So, I was reading through that thread, saw a completely incorrect point I just HAD to correct, then learned that the thread was locked for, uh, being old and then being posted in again.

Now, sure, it makes sense to quietly point out "hey, this thread is old" (and yet more sense to give the date of each post more prominence in the theme). However, I don't understand locking it at all. One minute we have people merging threads together, in a pattern reminiscent of obsessive compulsive disorder, when they share a few common keywords. (Which, by the way, ruins discussions; it makes them generic, unfocused, monolithically huge and confusing).

...Then, then the next moment, a thread gets locked and the OP told to start another, because the originally quite short locked thread is eight months old. No link to the new thread, no concern for the fact that the thread was "necromanced" with an honest question that now nobody can answer in the open without creating confusion.

FURTHER, if I recall correctly this forum encourages keeping specific topics to single threads to the point that it was once actively encouraged by an automatic search feature, and people often say "use the search feature!" when others ask questions which have been answered.

How are people supposed to post in the cafe?

[koenn]

I think you have a point.

I can understand the locking of old flame bate and trolling threads - they should have been locked to begin with, and occasionally people dig up old threads related to banned members/mods and I would understand why those get locked as well, but mere locking by date seems a little overboard, especially when, as you point out, we've been actively encouraged to not start duplicate threads ....

I think moderation is left almost completely up to the mods themselves, apparently with no or very little ground rules. You see some mods lock necromancied threads as if their life depends on it, I've seen quite a few with 'your question was answered, thread closed' where others let those threads just die off naturally, ...

I've had a few threads disappear from under me while I was typing a reply ... very annoying

[matthew]

Old threads that are continuously active are fine. One that has been dead (not posted in) for many months often has outdated information. Many of these threads discuss issues and opinions that are no longer relevant. Starting a new thread is almost always better in those cases. If some context is desired, a link to the original thread is reasonable, perhaps with a note that new information has come up that could change the course of the discussion.

We started doing this because some old threads that were discussing controversial issues were being "resurrected" after many months and causing arguments over issues that were no longer valid concerns as the landscape had changed considerably. We found that starting fresh enabled new discussion on the topic without the baggage of newcomers to the discussion reacting strongly to things that no longer were issues.

There isn't a firm policy on when/how this is done, but is generally done by staff members who have been here for a long time and have a sense of the sorts of discussions that tend to degrade this way. We have found it is remarkably effective at heading off unnecessary arguments and focuses discussions on current facts instead of things that are no longer applicable.

In this specific instance, change in projects like OpenGL can be quite rapid. A comment/question from December 2008 will likely have a very different answer in July 2009 than it did seven months earlier. Had the discussion been ongoing that entire time, the changes would likely have been mentioned in the thread over time. With a gap from March 16, 2009 to July 19, 2009, a full four months, it is hard to believe the original data is still a valid starting point for the discussion and it is better to start fresh.

Does that help?

I'm sorry we can't take the time to post a long explanation each time a thread is closed for these reasons, but this is what we are thinking when it happens.

[koenn]

Can't speak for Mr. Picklesworth, but yes, it gives some context, and it sounds reasonable when you put it like that. Unfortunatley, that context isn't obvious when a thread is locked with "necromancing" as only explanation.

In this specific instance, change in projects like OpenGL can be quite rapid. A comment/question from December 2008 will likely have a very different answer in July 2009 than it did seven months earlier. Had the discussion been ongoing that entire time, the changes would likely have been mentioned in the thread over time. With a gap from March 16, 2009 to July 19, 2009, a full four months, it is hard to believe the original data is still a valid starting point for the discussion and it is better to start fresh.

Does that help?

In this specific case, with a rapidly changing project that may cause discussions to reoccur repeatedly, wouldn't that get those discussions moved to "Recurring" routinely ?

[matthew]

Can't speak for Mr. Picklesworth, but yes, it gives some context, and it sounds reasonable when you put it like that. Unfortunatley, that context isn't obvious when a thread is locked with "necromancing" as only explanation.

I agree. That's why I apologized and said we wished we had the time and ability to post an extended explanation in each closed thread.

In this specific case, with a rapidly changing project that may cause discussions to reoccur repeatedly, wouldn't that get those discussions moved to "Recurring" routinely ?

Some do, but we try to limit that only to truly regularly recurring discussions, not ones that only come up a few times, such as once or twice a year.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Old threads that are continuously active are fine. One that has been dead (not posted in) for many months often has outdated information. Many of these threads discuss issues and opinions that are no longer relevant. Starting a new thread is almost always better in those cases. If some context is desired, a link to the original thread is reasonable, perhaps with a note that new information has come up that could change the course of the discussion.

We started doing this because some old threads that were discussing controversial issues were being "resurrected" after many months and causing arguments over issues that were no longer valid concerns as the landscape had changed considerably. We found that starting fresh enabled new discussion on the topic without the baggage of newcomers to the discussion reacting strongly to things that no longer were issues.

There isn't a firm policy on when/how this is done, but is generally done by staff members who have been here for a long time and have a sense of the sorts of discussions that tend to degrade this way. We have found it is remarkably effective at heading off unnecessary arguments and focuses discussions on current facts instead of things that are no longer applicable.

In this specific instance, change in projects like OpenGL can be quite rapid. A comment/question from December 2008 will likely have a very different answer in July 2009 than it did seven months earlier. Had the discussion been ongoing that entire time, the changes would likely have been mentioned in the thread over time. With a gap from March 16, 2009 to July 19, 2009, a full four months, it is hard to believe the original data is still a valid starting point for the discussion and it is better to start fresh.

Does that help?

I'm sorry we can't take the time to post a long explanation each time a thread is closed for these reasons, but this is what we are thinking when it happens.

Thanks, Matthew. That's a solid reason. Things do tend to snowball with web forums, so I can see where you are coming from. I think it would be interesting to experiment with not locking immediately, but then again this is the only time it's actually bothered me outright, so I'll trust you guys know what you are doing.
Oh, and I also appreciate that you guys don't use pre-written responses. It's nice to have an individual on the other end