Lock old threads

[Kevin_Price]

On the other hand, this poster just couldn't wait another 9 days for their first-ever post, and the thread they revived just barely missed its 15-year-dormancy anniversary.

-Kevin P

[LiliMcDonald · Accepted solution]

Update on this - we have been actively developing a solution for this. The new feature will do the following:

- "Soft lock" a topic once it has been solved. Users will be encouraged to start a new topic instead, but replies will still be allowed.

- Lock a topic after 6 months from the last reply. The topic will no longer allow new replies, but kudos and solutions are still allowed.

We will also be implementing regular archiving of old topics to keep the boards more up to date and relevant, per our Content Archiving Policy.

Topics will be available in a searchable archive for a certain period of time. After that, content will be moved to a private archive.

An official announcement will be posted in the NI Community News blog at a later date.

Please let me know if there are any questions in the meantime.

Thanks,

Lili

[Hooovahh]

---

@Kevin_Price wrote:

On the other hand, this poster just couldn't wait another 9 days for their first-ever post, and the thread they revived just barely missed its 15-year-dormancy anniversary.

---

Record so far is 16 years, 5 months, 1 week, 3 days.

[Kevin_Price]

FWIW, I think it's a mistake to lock threads at all, and ESPECIALLY as quickly as 6 months after last activity.

Once you lock a thread with obsolete or misleading information, it can NEVER be corrected.  Just a few messages back in this thread right here I commented about being able to update a 14-YEAR zombie thread (of my own) with better info.  I think it was valuable to do so because several other threads I've been in over the years have linked back to that particular one.  Thus being able to add to the original thread helped enhance many different other threads.  (It's hard guessing which particular one a searcher might land in first, it all depends on which search terms and order they happened to think of.)

I wonder how much of the annoyance aspect of zombie threads is *mostly* caused by the intake system.  When someone wants to ask a question, they're first funneled through a search process that kinda encourages them to add to an old thread rather than start a new one.  I think a lot of the issue starts there.  

I think we'd be better off with a "soft lock" approach on inactive threads.  That'd help steer away a lot of the annoying zombie thread revivals, many of them from pretty new members, without preventing potentially valuable updates & corrections.

Among other examples, I've seen many DAQ-related threads that were long ago "settled" only to have someone update them a few years later to say that a certain newer device or driver version would solve the problem bettter. 

-Kevin P, tilting at windmills again

[crossrulz]

I am a fan of the soft lock.  I am also of the opinion that a flat out lock is too much.  And blind archiving can be dangerous.  There are plenty of useful "old" threads/posts out there (Action Engine, Clear As Mud, and many more that I just happen across).

[Hooovahh]

Yeah I kinda agree.  The soft lock sounds totally fine and maybe just a softlock if there is a solution OR 6 months have passed since the last reply and never fully lock a thread.  I too have updated some of my own posts years later once some more information comes out, or I learn something I didn't know then.

[LiliMcDonald]

---

@crossrulz wrote:

I am a fan of the soft lock.  I am also of the opinion that a flat out lock is too much.  And blind archiving can be dangerous.  There are plenty of useful "old" threads/posts out there (Action Engine, Clear As Mud, and many more that I just happen across).

---

Regarding archiving, our curators use a specific algorithm to determine relevancy, usefulness, traffic, etc. on content before it is decided to archive it. We don't often blind archive except for in a few areas such as Version Conversion, Job Postings, Resumes.

As for the hard lock feature, I appreciate the feedback so far. We can think through some more options on how to approach this. Perhaps a more noticeable warning to users - for instance, after the click the reply button? Perhaps a way to limit who can revive old topics?

[aputman]

---

@LiliMcDonald wrote:
Perhaps a way to limit who can revive old topics?

---

I like this suggestion.  Maybe base it on forum status.  I could see someone that actively participates in the forums having more awareness of what constitutes a post worthy to be revived (or even noticing the age of a post) than, for instance, a new user that has 20 posts, doesn't understand the basics of LabVIEW and thinks a "Thank you" is a valid response to a 10 yr old topic.  

[RavensFan]

---

@aputman wrote:

---

@LiliMcDonald wrote:
Perhaps a way to limit who can revive old topics?

---

I like this suggestion.  Maybe base it on forum status.  I could see someone that actively participates in the forums having more awareness of what constitutes a post worthy to be revived (or even noticing the age of a post) than, for instance, a new user that has 20 posts, doesn't understand the basics of LabVIEW and thinks a "Thank you" is a valid response to a 10 yr old topic.  

---

That particular situation doesn't happen that often.  And when it does, it is nice to see that something you helped someone with a long time ago is still helping people now.  And the Thank you is more meaningful than a Kudo you might never see.

If I have a vote, I'd vote against locking old threads.  For the most part, they aren't revived that often.  And there are many legitimate reasons to revive them.  If a soft check is possible that warns someone this thread is particularly old, are you sure you want to post, or would you like to start a new one, is a good idea.

And if a particularly old one is revived, when it shouldn't have been, there are enough people on the forum who can split that off into its own new thread allowing the original thread to fade back into history.  I had one just in the last few days where I thought that was the correct action.  New message in old thread with a topic that really was not related to the original thread at all.

[aputman]

---

@RavensFan wrote:

---

---

 And the Thank you is more meaningful than a Kudo you might never see.

---

When you have 6581...82...83 kudos, they might not be as meaningful. 

I see kudos pop up in notification all the time. 

Well, that's a bit of a stretch.  I don't get kudos all the time but when I do, they pop up in notification. 

My point was that kudos are integrated into the forum and I can easily search for all of my kudo'd posts.  A thank you note, however, is not searchable.  I likened it to...back in the day...when unlimited text messages were not a thing and you had to buy text messages and you got charged for sending and receiving, and someone sends a message like "OK" or "yeah".