Automatic "Close Thread" Function After A Time

[RDN]

Old threads are sometimes resurrected - typically by Newbies browsing through all posts - and other members respond thinking that they a "current". This one here for example:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...ndpost&p=364505

I was wondering if threads could be closed automatically after a time period without new posts being added.

Or do we want them always to be open?

This would need a software change by Invision for sure.

[devildog683]

the only problem i would see is someone could be searching for info that would have helped them, but was deleted.

[Jai Dee]

Or do we want them always to be open? 

Good idea RDN.

Although similar topics do appear from time to time, as new members join and experience situations that prompt them to post on subjects that have been already covered in old threads, there are always other members that have opinions and don't mind sharing them.

An automatic close function after say 90 days would fix it... otherwise it would be up to the mods/admin to "mop the floors of ThaiVisa" again.

<I can't remember who posted that line but it struck me as funny at the time>

[jayenram]

I tend to agree with dd. There is some excellent information within the TV archives which would be lost to all if the threads were deleted.

[devildog683]

especially in the visa sections, granted the links are usually pinned and left there, but i know i've dug up some old experiences from others that have been of interest to me

[lopburi3]

Believe the suggestion was to close the thread - not to delete it. The information would still be available as I read it and (hopefully) would still come up on a search. The only difference would be that the person would have to start a new thread to post.

If it had to be new programming would suggest the ability to reply to such closed threads but with the first post have a link to the thread rather than the thread itself.

[devildog683]

If it had to be new programming would suggest the ability to reply to such closed threads but with the first post have a link to the thread rather than the thread itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thats a pretty good idea actually.....

[george]

Autoclosing is the most stupid thing you can do. You will lose traffic, search engine rankings and create an load of extra moderation. No big borads use this feature.

Lets see what Invision has in mind when the new software version is coming late this year.

[RDN]

Believe the suggestion was to close the thread - not to delete it.  The information would still be available as I read it and (hopefully) would still come up on a search.  The only difference would be that the person would have to start a new thread to post.

If it had to be new programming would suggest the ability to reply to such closed threads but with the first post have a link to the thread rather than the thread itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I did say "closing" the old threads, and meant "closing", not "deleting". Thanks lopburi3 for pointing that out

As someone who still has emails going back 10 years and DOS programs going back even further , I would absolutely NEVER delete anything from a computer system in case it may be of use in the future.

And lop's idea about an automatic link has it's merits, but the idea is to not make it too easy to re-start old threads. The poster must realise it IS an old thread and only start a new one if there is new information/ideas to post. The two members who responded to an old thread that was restarted, were apparently a little annoyed that they'd replied to help a poster who hasn't been active for over 8 months!

Here: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...05entry364505

So, can we start again, but this time think about "closing', not "deleting"?

Edited May 31, 2005 by RDN

[TizMe]

If it had to be new programming would suggest the ability to reply to such closed threads but with the first post have a link to the thread rather than the thread itself.

thats a pretty good idea actually.....

But you would then end up with multiple threads on the same topic. Isn't it better to have all replies found in the same thread.

[devildog683]

my head hurts............

[george]

We have frozen all forum software upgrades until the next version of Invisionboard is available. Only security patches and a few new features will be added before that. I believe they are planning some sort of "autoclosing per branch" function.

Will also have a look how other big forums handles this.

Let us have a look into this again at the end of the year.

[RDN]

If it had to be new programming would suggest the ability to reply to such closed threads but with the first post have a link to the thread rather than the thread itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thats a pretty good idea actually.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But you would then end up with multiple threads on the same topic. Isn't it better to have all replies found in the same thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But often the "factual" type of threads need restarting with current data. It will be important to pick a reasonable time period (of no new posts) in order to decide to close the thread and therefore force a new thread. Maybe, the time period would start from the date of the first post rather than the last post?

my head hurts............

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mine too, now

We have frozen all forum software upgrades until the next version of Invisionboard is available. Only security patches and a few new features will be added before that. I believe they are planning some sort of "autoclosing per branch" function.

Will also have a look how other big forums handles this.

Let us have a look into this again at the end of the year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, thanks G.

[bkkmadness]

Surely many of the old threads are revived by newbies that come across them via search engine results?

If they then wanted to post on them thinking they were current but could not as they were closed, they would not understand why they were closed and go elsewhere rather than signing up on the board and joining in?

[buadhai]

Surely many of the old threads are revived by newbies that come across them via search engine results?

If they then wanted to post on them thinking they were current but could not as they were closed, they would not understand why they were closed and go elsewhere rather than signing up on the board and joining in?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about just a warning: "You are about to post to a thread that has been inactive for at least 180 days. Are you sure you want to do that?"

[bkkmadness]

That'd be quite a useful compromise but would it be putting people off posting and is that something that thaivisa want to do especially with new posters?

[buadhai]

That'd be quite a useful compromise but would it be putting people off posting and is that something that thaivisa want to do especially with new posters?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe not. If "auto close" were active, there could be a "reopen thread" button to let people post again if they really had something current a relevant to post (or thought they did).

[RDN]

Surely many of the old threads are revived by newbies that come across them via search engine results?

If they then wanted to post on them thinking they were current but could not as they were closed, they would not understand why they were closed and go elsewhere rather than signing up on the board and joining in?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about just a warning: "You are about to post to a thread that has been inactive for at least 180 days. Are you sure you want to do that?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, that sounds good. And for people that then post follow-ups: "You are posting to a re-activated thread". It just needs a flag in the database to be set when the time period has expired, to trigger the messages.

[Ijustwannateach]

I'd recommend the reminder suggested rather than closing the threads. In sections of the forum with less activity, it's sometimes better to have an old thread renewed than to have an inevitable topic reposted again and again and again (for example, the constantly recurring "Will God Punish Me If I Have A Fake Degree" type threads in the Teacher's section).

"Steven"

[Zarkow]

Auto-closing threads is a really-really bad idea.

You ether have to go with the "Don't start threads that already exists" or "Don't revive old threads", not both.

And new posters, like myself on this board, like to search all the old threads to see if the answers are there already. If I find a thread that matches my case, but have a follow-up-thread...should I then have to start a new thread? No, ofcourse not, that is counter-productive in terms of user-friendlyness towards new users.

If anyone for any reason revives an OLD thread without having anything of value to add, remove the post. Heck, issue an warning to the user. If they revive an old thread and the thread benefits from it, then everything is won.

[Insight]

A notification sounds better rather than locking/closing the thread, IMO.

The problem is the way the date is printed for posts more than two days old:

2005-05-24 14:45:22

Programatically, it makes good sense. For general users however, it doesn't - It's neither in US or European format. A textual date presentation would be an improvement:

Tuesday, 24th May, 2005 14:45:22

George, Is it possible to change the format with the existing board software?

Another possibility could be changing the foreground/background colours when a post is over a select period of time...

[Insight]

So I said to this wall...

[Thetyim]

I like Insight's idea both about the date and the colour change

The date could be included in the box "topic started by"

[bkkmadness]

The colour change is the best idea yet, but I don't think anything will be done for a while because they are upgrading the format again aren't they?

[Insight]

http://docs.invisionpower.com/kb/article.php?id=165

[The Gentleman Scamp]

I tend to agree with dd. There is some excellent information within the TV archives which would be lost to all if the threads were deleted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Strongly agree, besides - we have Wolfie to pounce on and close threads whenever he sees fit.

Edited June 2, 2005 by The Gentleman Scamp

[bkkmadness]

Nobody is talking about deletion of threads.

[The Gentleman Scamp]

Nobody is talking about deletion of threads.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very true, I wasn't either.

Closure not same same deletion.

[bkkmadness]

edit coz my heads hurting

Edited June 2, 2005 by bkkmadness

[george]

A notification sounds better rather than locking/closing the thread, IMO.

The problem is the way the date is printed for posts more than two days old:

2005-05-24 14:45:22

Programatically, it makes good sense. For general users however, it doesn't - It's neither in US or European format. A textual date presentation would be an improvement:

Tuesday, 24th May, 2005 14:45:22

George, Is it possible to change the format with the existing board software?

Another possibility could be changing the foreground/background colours when a post is over a select period of time...

The international standard date notation ISO 8601 is

YYYY-MM-DD

where YYYY is the year in the usual Gregorian calendar, MM is the month of the year between 01 (January) and 12 (December), and DD is the day of the month between 01 and 31.

For example, the fourth day of February in the year 1995 is written in the standard notation as

1995-02-04

Other commonly used notations are e.g. 2/4/95, 4/2/95, 95/2/4, 4.2.1995, 04-FEB-1995, 4-February-1995, and many more. Especially the first two examples are dangerous, because as both are used quite often in the U.S. and in Great Britain and both can not be distinguished, it is unclear whether 2/4/95 means 1995-04-02 or 1995-02-04. The date notation 2/4/5 has at least six reasonable interpretations (assuming that only the twentieth and twenty-first century are reasonable candidates in our life time).

Advantages of the ISO 8601 standard date notation compared to other commonly used variants:

- easily readable and writeable by software (no ‘JAN’, ‘FEB’, ... table necessary)

- easily comparable and sortable with a trivial string comparison

- language independent

- can not be confused with other popular date notations

- consistency with the common 24h time notation system, where the larger units (hours) are also written in front of the smaller ones (minutes and seconds)

strings containing a date followed by a time are also easily comparable and sortable (e.g. write “1995-02-04 22:45:00”)

- the notation is short and has constant length, which makes both keyboard data entry and table layout easier

- identical to the Chinese date notation, so the largest cultural group (>25%) on this planet is already familiar with it :-)

- date notations with the order “year, month, day” are in addition already widely used e.g. in Japan, Korea, Hungary, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and a few other countries and people in the U.S. are already used to at least the “month, day” order

- a 4-digit year representation avoids overflow problems after 2099-12-31

As dates will look a little bit strange anyway starting with 2000-01-01 (e.g. like 1/1/0), it has been suggested that the year 2000 is an excellent opportunity to change to the standard date notation.

ISO 8601 is only specifying numeric notations and does not cover dates and times where words are used in the representation. It is not intended as a replacement for language-dependent worded date notations such as “24. Dezember 2001” (German) or “February 4, 1995” (US English). ISO 8601 should however be used to replace notations such as “2/4/95” and “9.30 p.m.”.

Apart from the recommended primary standard notation YYYY-MM-DD, ISO 8601 also specifies a number of alternative formats for use in applications with special requirements. All of these alternatives can easily and automatically be distinguished from each other:

The hyphens can be omitted if compactness of the representation is more important than human readability, for example as in

19950204

If only the month or even only the year is of interest:

1995-02 or 1995

In commercial and industrial applications (delivery times, production plans, etc.), especially in Europe, it is often required to refer to a week of a year. Week 01 of a year is per definition the first week that has the Thursday in this year, which is equivalent to the week that contains the fourth day of January. In other words, the first week of a new year is the week that has the majority of its days in the new year. Week 01 might also contain days from the previous year and the week before week 01 of a year is the last week (52 or 53) of the previous year even if it contains days from the new year. A week starts with Monday (day 1) and ends with Sunday (day 7). For example, the first week of the year 1997 lasts from 1996-12-30 to 1997-01-05 and can be written in standard notation as

1997-W01 or 1997W01

The week notation can also be extended by a number indicating the day of the week. For example, the day 1996-12-31, which is the Tuesday (day 2) of the first week of 1997, can also be written as

1997-W01-2 or 1997W012

for applications like industrial planning where many things like shift rotations are organized per week and knowing the week number and the day of the week is more handy than knowing the day of the month.

An abbreviated version of the year and week number like

1995W05

is sometimes useful as a compact code printed on a product that indicates when it has been manufactured.

Note: The ISO standard avoids explicitly stating the possible range of week numbers, but this can easily be deduced from the definition. Possible ISO week numbers are in the range 01 to 53. A year always has a week 52. (There is one historic exception: the year in which the Gregorian calendar was introduced had less than 365 days and less than 52 weeks.)

Proof: Per definition, the first week of a year is W01 and consequently days before week W01 belong to the previous year and so there is no week with lower numbers. Considering the highest possible week number, the worst case is a leap year like 1976 that starts with a Thursday, because this keeps the highest possible number of days of W01 in the previous year, i.e. 3 days. In this case, the Sunday of W52 of the worst case year is day number 4+51*7=361 and 361-366=5 days of W53 belong still to this year, which guarantees that in the worst case year day 4 (Thursday) of W53 is not yet in the next year, so a week number 53 is possible. For example, the 53 weeks of the worst case year 1976 started with 1975-12-29 = 1976-W01-1 and ended with 1977-01-02 = 1976-W53-7. On the other hand, considering the lowest number of the last week of a year, the worst case is a non-leap year like 1999 that starts with a Friday, which ensures that the first three days of the year belong to the last week of the previous year. In this case, the Sunday of week 52 would be day number 3+52*7=367, i.e. only the last 367-365=2 days of the W52 reach into the next year and consequently, even a worst case year like 1999 has a week W52 including the days 1999-12-27 to 2000-01-02. q.e.d.

Both day and year are useful units of structuring time, because the position of the sun on the sky, which influences our lives, is described by them. However the 12 months of a year are of some obscure mystic origin and have no real purpose today except that people are used to having them (they do not even describe the current position of the moon). In some applications, a date notation is preferred that uses only the year and the day of the year between 001 and 365 (366 in leap years). The standard notation for this variant representing the day 1995-02-04 (that is day 035 of the year 1995) is

1995-035 or 1995035

Leap years are years with an additional day YYYY-02-29, where the year number is a multiple of four with the following exception: If a year is a multiple of 100, then it is only a leap year if it is also a multiple of 400. For example, 1900 was not a leap year, but 2000 is one.