Graverobbing

This is a discussion on Graverobbing within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; As to the issue of dredging up really old posts, there is a setting under the admin console to automatically ...

  1. #1
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189

    Graverobbing

    As to the issue of dredging up really old posts, there is a setting under the admin console to automatically lock threads after a specific period of inactivity. This does not prevent admins and mods from posting to threads such as the faq that usually have very long periods of inactivity (and are locked ot teh public anyway).
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  2. #2
    Kernel hacker
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Farncombe, Surrey, England
    Posts
    15,677
    We discussed this a bit before. It has two drawbacks:
    1. Someone must do something to make this happen(even if it's just setting a configuration option or installing a package to the vBulletin system), and it's not generally that much of a problem.
    2. There are valid, publicly accessible threads, that are long-lived and meaningfull.

    I think both of these are argument enough to not change the current system.

    Waking old threads doesn't happen so often that it REALLY causes a problem.

    --
    Mats
    Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them!
    Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,317
    This was brought up just recently. Old threads being resurrected is such a small problem that it isn't worth the small hassle that comes from locking them presumptively.

    Not that I actually have a preference, either way would be fine with me as long as the period of inactivity was at least a month if not six.

  4. #4
    & the hat of GPL slaying Thantos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,681
    IMO it doesn't happen enough to need it and there are a few possible cases where we wouldn't want to limit it. And it is pretty easy for mods to just close the thread.

  5. #5
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    I'm in agreement that the problem is not widespread enough to warrant any changes in how we currently handle it. If someone posts and the last post before it was 20 to 30 days ago then I usually close the thread.

  6. #6
    Registered User guesst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lehi, UT
    Posts
    179
    Besides, sometimes those resurrections are legitimate.
    Type-ins are back! Visit Cymon's Games at http://www.cymonsgames.com for a new game every week!

  7. #7
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    Besides, sometimes those resurrections are legitimate.
    No matter how legit they may be if they go beyond a specified time frame I will close them.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,317
    ... or split the bump into a separate thread.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    Yes you could do that but that also might get a bit annoying.

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,317
    Why?

  11. #11
    Reverse Engineer maxorator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    2,318
    You always tell people to search for posts with similar problems... people assume if they are told to search for them, they can also reply to them.
    "The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore

  12. #12
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    It would be nice if the board would auto-close very old threads. That way they could still be searched and viewed but could not be posted to.

  13. #13
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,538
    I don't see that it's wrong to post in an old thread if it's a legit reply.
    That suggests that you would close the C/C++ Recommended Books thread because it was X years old and someone happened to be interested in a book and posted there.
    As long as it is a legit reply, I don't see it wrong to bump an old thread at all.
    There shouldn't be a rule that says close after X time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  14. #14
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,661
    It can be a disturbance if you bump a thread so old that the people who posted there are now gone.

    The books thread is just a good list, and lists can be appended over time. That's the only reason the thread doesn't get closed. It's not a rationale for a complete rule change.

  15. #15
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    As long as it is a legit reply, I don't see it wrong to bump an old thread at all.
    It's not just my decision.

    5. Don't bump threads. (Bumping: posting messages on threads to move them up the list or to post on a thread that has been inactive for two weeks or longer).
    My 20 to 30 days is more than what our forum guidelines call for. According to the guidelines I'm operating within the normal procedures for the board.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21