• Anything ‘published’ on the web is viewed as intellectual property and, regardless of whether it displays a copyright symbol or not, is therefore copyrighted by the originator. The only exception to this is if there is a “free and unrestricted reuse” statement associated with the work.

    In order to protect our members and TFL from possible litigation, all members must abide by the following new rules:

    1. Copying and pasting entire articles from another site to TFL is strictly prohibited. The same applies to articles from print or other media, and to posting photographs taken of copyrighted pages or other media.

    2. Copyright law provides for “fair use” of portions of a copyrighted work. You can copy no more than a SINGLE paragraph from the article to your post (3 or 4 sentences at most).

    3. You must provide a link to the article along with the name of website. For example: ww.xxx.yyy/zzz (The Lower Thumbsuck Daily News).

    4. You must provide, in your own words, a brief summary of the article AND your reasons for believing it will be of interest to TFL members. Failure to do so may result in the thread being closed or your post being deleted as a “cut and paste drive by.”

    5. Photographs and other images are also copyrighted. "Hotlinking" of images (so that it appears in your message) from other sites is also prohibited unless you own rights to the image. If you wish to share an image, provide a clickable link to it.

    Posts that do not follow these new guidelines will be altered or deleted by staff. Members who continue to violate this policy may lose their posting privileges at TFL.

    Thank you for your cooperation and your participation in TFL, the leading online forum for firearms enthusiasts.

Lock old threads

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rtpzwms

New member
Instead of locking old threads after they have been raised from the dead why not lock all threads after x age? I won't tell the staff what x is thats up to you. But this would be proactive not reactive.... Just a thought.:rolleyes:
 
No.

Some old threads, when they come back to life, are viable even after months or years.

It actually wouldn't be proactive, or reactive.

It would be overkill.
 
Almost invariably, old threads are reopened by new members.

I just did a quick scout, and these were the first four reopened "necrothreads" I found. In two, the reopening was the person's first post; in one, the reopener had a post count of 2; the fourth was reopened by someone whose post count is given as 15, although he's been a member for a while...

started January 30, 2007
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4190959&postcount=32

started September 27, 2008
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4191801&postcount=10

started May 1, 2001
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4183572&postcount=27

started November 26, 2005
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4186381&postcount=22

I'm only semi-serious here, but what if the forum software could be tweaked so that members would only have "necrothread reopening privileges" after some minimum post count?

Sort of like the "For Sale/Wanted" forums?

Instead of seeing the message that says "Are you sure you want to reopen this thread?" they'd see one that says "No can do, Grasshopper... go, and post some more..." :p

I bet this would eliminate at least 95% of this.

Oh, and... I do like the new thread-dating arrangement. :D
 
Personally, I don't think anyone should be able to post unless they have more than 23,000 posts. :rolleyes:

Is your life destroyed by encountering a necrothread?

Is the horror so complete that your brain crumbles under the weight of it?

Do you wake up in the middle of the night, shrieking as you dream about your encounter with a necrothread?


Yes?

You do?

Oh well, get over it.

As I said, we're more than content to handle the occasional necrothread on a case by case basis.

Don't particularly want to deal with the necrothreads? Let me tell you how...

A few weeks ago we tweeked the software so that on the forum message list older threads now have a statement like this under them "(poster who started this thread), started January 8, 2009"

Looking for that will tell you just necro a thread really is.
 
"... go, and post some more..."

Know what they would do if we told them that? They would go and post some more! The posts generated by that may not be quite as substantial as we would like, either.

Trust me, we understand the problem, and agree to a point. However, as Mike pointed out, some resurrection of old threads can be desirable. So who is going to make the call on which threads should be closed and which can remain open for future clarification or input?

Perhaps if we can get the older members to stop admonishing any new members (and some old members) to "do a search before posting that tired old question", then maybe the problem would be lessened just a little bit.

Now, admittedly that third example was a doozy! I can't fathom what makes anyone, new member or old, want to reopen a 9 year old thread just to add a throwaway one-liner like that. It doesn't make sense, but it is also rare enough that it doesn't make us want to start locking old threads.
 
I never thought it did much harm to me. Sometimes I get enjoyment out of re-reading the diverse comments and the new questions that are asked.
But, it may cost me a couple of clicks, that maybe a problem, are we on a click-o-meter???
 
No.

Some old threads, when they come back to life, are viable even after months or years.

It actually wouldn't be proactive, or reactive.

It would be overkill.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%, especially if something fresh comes out of it or it can answer a new posters question/problem. Beats the heck out of 27 Bear threads in a 3 week period. Okay maybe not 27 but when you are on 4 gun sites and you see the same thread on 3 of them and each site has half a dozen bear threads in a month or HD loads for the shotgun it gets kind of exciting. Says I with tongue firmly in cheek as I know I'm going to get sucked into them. I have seen old threads going back 4, 5 or more years with a new twist added to them and unless 20 posters were around then and heavily involved in that thread it usually doesn't bother most people that much.
 
No, don't change anything. Old threads are fun. My favorite part is when people start answering the OP's question. Even though the thread is nine years old and the OP hasn't posted in eight and a half.:p
 
Mal H said:
Know what they would do if we told them that? They would go and post some more! The posts generated by that may not be quite as substantial as we would like, either.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm not sure there'd be the same incentive for "insubstantial" posts as there is for people who want to be able to use the buy-and-sell forums.

How about, "Go start yer own freakin' thread, n00b!"

No, I suppose not. Never mind. :p
nate45 said:
My favorite part is when people start answering the OP's question. Even though the thread is nine years old and the OP hasn't posted in eight and a half.
Click to expand...
Yes! They can be very funny, as well as occasionally informative.

(And my spell-checker thinks "n00b" is a word. Huh.)
 
Last edited:
I never could understand people's objections to 'zombie threads'. If it was posted before July of 2010 it will be a new thread to me. I use due diligence in search before I bring something up as a new question but if someone else reopens a long gone thread every once in awhile I get something out of it. :)
 
Mike Irwin said:
Uh, pardon me, Mal?

You don't have 23,000 posts.

Stop posting, please.
Click to expand...

Really? Where did you learn to count? Check again, wiseguy!

:D

Vanya said:
(And my spell-checker thinks "n00b" is a word. Huh.)
Click to expand...
It is a word. It's derived from the Yiddish word for pest, seriously.
 
Mal H said:
Vanya said:
(And my spell-checker thinks "n00b" is a word. Huh.)
Click to expand...
It is a word. It's derived from the Yiddish word for pest, seriously.
Click to expand...
Eh, not so sure about that.. I thought that was nudnik or nudzh? Good try, though. ;)

But anyway -- spelled with two zeros??? My spell-checker thinks that's just fine... (and it doesn't care for "yer," which is a word, goldarnit. :D)

And that post count... somebody does know how to tweak the software...
 
Last edited:
We're getting pretty far afield here, so we'll end this shortly. Although with my post count, I should be able to post anything I want, right? ;)

Eh, not so sure about that.. I thought that was nudnik or nudzh? Good try, though.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a try - it's the truth. You're on the right track. Noob (with o's not zeros) is a shortened form of noodge or nudzh. Why the 'd' changed to a 'b' is anyone's guess, but there are many examples of letter changes over the years in almost any language you care to examine.
 
Mal H said:
Noob (with o's not zeros) is a shortened form of noodge or nudzh. Why the 'd' changed to a 'b' is anyone's guess, but there are many examples of letter changes over the years in almost any language you care to examine.
Click to expand...
OK. Pest, eh...?

So I wasn't so far off, in the "How to spot a newbie" thread, when I suggested that "n00b" was a word for the larval form of a mall ninja...

Hardly far afield at all, I'd say. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top