Why keep posts that are old?

[jeeperman]

Especially if there are no responses and the post contains no info of any help that might answer someones question if they read the post??

Why are those types of posts/threads not deleted after a few months?

Are they not taking up server space for no good reason?

 

[QC]

Re: Why keep posts that are old?

I have moved this over to non-Boating technical topics. Closest I can find . . .

1) We don't manipulate threads that are within the guidelines

2) A single post with no replies is not a big drain on hardware

3) Respect for the member . . . Maybe . . .

4) I guess the best answer is that we don't assume there is going to be no posts and then after the thread drops a few pages, then we don't go looking for them.

I often check "New Posts" and then look specifically at those with no answers. I then check them to see if the question or topic is in the right section (Trailers for this one?), or if I can help, or if there is some other problem. That doesn't work though for threads that have dropped as they don't show up . . .

Best explanations I can come up with for you.

P.S. In general, we keep all for the integrity of a huge data base.

 

[jeeperman]

Re: Why keep posts that are old?

Reasonable answers.

I was just curious as to why bother to lock a thread now when someone responded to the OP of a pertinent question in the proper section which went unanswered for three years.

 

[QC]

Re: Why keep posts that are old?

Constant debate on that one ^^^^^
If there is benefit in letting the discussion continue then we tend to leave it alone. If it is a specific question that new responses only confuse those poking around, and the OP may be long gone, then we lock. Tough call.

 

[waterinthefuel]

Re: Why keep posts that are old?

I'm a moderator on other forums and our rule is that you don't delete any thread that remains within the forum rules, period. It's age doesn't matter, number of replies, status of the OP, nothing.

You never know when someone searching for an answer finds it in an old thread where the member that answered it (and could have been the only one that knew the answer) is gone or deceased.

No reason to delete old threads. The amount of space text takes up is minimal.

 

[QC]

Re: Why keep posts that are old?

Like I said . . . constant debate. Agree that most other forums let them live on. What's a little buggy for all is a new member innocently digs up a bone while searching, replies and then ten posts later a few regulars realize that it is a useless exercise and feel stupid. Me included Who knows what the right answer really is. There probably isn't one . . .

P.S. BTW, for clarity, we would not delete those, but we would "lock" them . . . One goal is always to protect the data base for technical searches and the thread may help somebody out. Obviously this could be said about the late posts too, hence the debate . . . Doh!

 

[jeeperman]

Re: Why keep posts that are old?

Like I said . . . constant debate. Agree that most other forums let them live on. What's a little buggy for all is a new member innocently digs up a bone while searching, replies and then ten posts later a few regulars realize that it is a useless exercise and feel stupid. Me included Who knows what the right answer really is. There probably isn't one . . .

P.S. BTW, for clarity, we would not delete those, but we would "lock" them . . . One goal is always to protect the data base for technical searches and the thread may help somebody out. Obviously this could be said about the late posts too, hence the debate . . . Doh!

There in lies the crutch. A thread is dug up unanswered from way back when and an answer or two is posted. Maybe those answers are good, could have been better or are totally off in left field and harmful if followed.
Locking such thread then forces someone else to start a new thread to correct or clarify obvious wrong(s) contained in the other thread.

Just sayin.

 

[QC]

Re: Why keep posts that are old?

So boils down to:

1) Lock old threads that are dug up if the incongruity is screwy.

2) Unanswered threads usually die on their own, but nobody is "sweeping" for them.

 

[a70eliminator]

Re: Why keep posts that are old?

Heck I'm happy that posts come back to the top of the page when they get a reply, some of the other forums I visit don't do that.
Good job to I-Boats web maintainence crew.

 

[jay_merrill]

Re: Why keep posts that are old?

This is very much a matter of opinion. I often find old threads that have relevanece and can offer a learning opportunity for members, who were not around when they originally posted. I also find them with answers that are correct and valuable, when no one knew the answer at the original time of posting.

Frankly, I find the aversion to old threads to be irrational at times. If the info's good - let it roll!



???

 

[BoatBuoy]

Re: Why keep posts that are old?

Disk space is cheap, particularly if you own the servers. Thinning the herd is labor intensive.

 

[4JawChuck]

Re: Why keep posts that are old?

Lets review the thread in question.

http://forums.iboats.com/showthread.php?t=165845

I rarely look at the date the thread was posted, why should that matter?

I am very surprised this thread was locked at all, none of the information given was "incorrect" or "dangerous". This same question comes up all the time actually.

Not that I care really but locking a thread for the sake of locking it because it is "old" seems a little heavy handed? I can think of a quite a few reasons to leave that thread open, but only one to lock it...cause its old?

Hate to think I'm going to get locked up because I am...old.

 

[ezmobee]

Re: Why keep posts that are old?

That thread is a bad example. Part of why I locked it up was that is was dragged back up by a spammer promoting his trailer business.

 

[jay_merrill]

Re: Why keep posts that are old?

If the spammer was the problem, why not just remove the link, as you did, send him a PM informing him that spamming is not allowed, violators will be IP banned, etc. Other than the spam link, the info that the guy gave was good and I have to wonder if he just didn't know any better.

This one is one that I would have left alone, because the info is still worth the read. Not "beating you up" over this - just an opinion.



???

 

[ezmobee]

Re: Why keep posts that are old?

Good grief, I opened the darn thread.

 

[4JawChuck]

Re: Why keep posts that are old?

That thread is a bad example. Part of why I locked it up was that is was dragged back up by a spammer promoting his trailer business.

Thanks for clearing that up, I didn't realize the thread had been spammed.

 

[QC]

Re: Why keep posts that are old?

You guys understand that locked threads remain visible and searchable forever right? The info is still there, but new posting is "locked" out . . .

 

[Laddies]

Re: Why keep posts that are old?

One reason for threads not being removed is that when a tread is removed it also remove the post count for that thread from all that posted on it. About a year ago I was losing post count and asked how that could be happen and a moderator told me that he checked with the site and was told the only way that could happen was that one of the moderators or administrators were deleting older posts of mine. That"s when I made the decision to to not answer as many questions as I did in the past. There are people on this site who if you disagree with, will stick you in the back when ever they get the chance.

 

[jeeperman]

Re: Why keep posts that are old?

post count?

I ain't worried bout no stinkin post count.

Oh wait, is there a prize for certain post counts?

Are there prizes? what are they? they good ones?

 

[Laddies]

Re: Why keep posts that are old?

Another good reason to not frequent this place is not having to put up with the ignorance of some of the members jeeperman.