Closing of topics / Threads

[setumonroe]

Hello All,

I am curious to find out your opinions on closing topics (threads) that were started but have obviously been resolved or gone dead. I think it would make the community a bit more clean and easy to navigate. Since there are only a few Mods, maybe there could even be a 'mark for closure or lock' option that we could mark, to help them out a bit.

What are your thoughts?

Setu.

[natacharodriguez]

Not a good idea, anyone gets to decide when to lock a thread. Also, why lock? It can be revived by anyone at any time, maybe a new member.

[stephenbrightman]

Dead threads can still contain very useful information,  from both a historical and a timeless perspective. 

[setumonroe]

It is standard principle to lock a thread after some prolonged period of inactivity, that doesn't mean it is not accessible. I also indicated that the Mods would be the one to do this. Not all threads contain an active discussion focus. For example there are many threads here which were aimed at specific responses (How do I make my profile private etc etc). Once these have been answered, what would be the use of reviving dead threads wherein there is nothing to be discussed?

[chadworth]

I agree with Setu here.

I participate on a few other forums, and I've noted elsewhere on these forums, that the forums leave a lot to be desired, particularly as representative of a professional organization.

There's no reason why threads can't be marked as solved when they are indeed solved. 

They're still searchable, they're still accessible, but allowing people to revive long dead threads help no one.  So far as I can tell there is no prohibition on creating a new thread, and stating what your own issue is, and encouraging others to comment and assist you in solving your own issue.

Additionally, on other forums, the way that solved threads work is the OP and mods have the ability to mark a thread as solved.  So if the OP--the person with the original issue--erroneously believes the issue to be solved, and later realizes his error, he is free to reopen it himself.  He/she doesn't even need a mod to do that.

A similar situation should be worked out here.

I note that one of the mods on this thread has replied to me (and John K) to note that the mods do note the deficiencies of the odesk forums and an overhaul is in the (perpetual) works.

[setumonroe]

My thoughts exactly Chad. Hopefully it will come with the pending overhaul.

[tasamil]

I think that that option already exists actually because I 've seen some threads that are read-only, so they are basically locked.

I am against that idea because I don't see any practical purpose in it. The threads that are current/new are already displayed on the first page, and the threads that are older move down so I don't see why they should be locked anyway-it is not like they are clogging  the first/second page. Beside that when old posts are revived often times there are some very valid points and advices that one would miss otherwise.

[whogg72]

Natasa,

Been here for a little over a year, and I've only ever seen one thread locked, and that was yesterday. Don't think it's a normal oDesk policy...and I agree that they shouldn't be locked - I often see revived threads with subsequent questions (and have done it myself)...

Cheers,

William

[setumonroe]

Seems I am being outvoted.

The idea was applicable for threads of a certain nature as I indicated. Some threads will never be revived because they have been solved, due to the nature of the question rather than a discussion.

Also bear in mind that the relevance and facts of some threads change with time.

[setumonroe]

Once again I will put forward the idea of routinely locking VERY OLD threads from comments. It usually serves no purpose as the OP and the circumstance have changed, been resolved, or not applicable in the same manner. It only serves to confuse members in the community.

I have seen quite a few dead threads resurrected buy members posting things arbitrarily to the original content, and misleads the rest of the community down a path to nowhere.

If there is a current matter that needs to be addressed, start a new thread - not post mid-way a 3yr old one. In any case the threads will still be accessible for reading and reference. This is nothing new, it is a standard practice in the world of forum moderation.

[suznee]

Setu,

Although it is common practice in a lot of forums, I really don't see any point in it. I would rather see an old thead posted to then 50 new ones with the same question it. I don't see any point in closing old topics and locking them.

I realize some people need things terribly organized, but not everything has to be the same as everywhere else.

[setumonroe]

Suzanne,

I agree that I would not like to see 50 new threads reiterating the same thing (which is currently the case at this point). I do not see the point however, in resurrecting a 3 year old thread that in most cases is not applicable to the current post or situation.

Furthermore, most times the post is made and continued mid-way the old thread making a new reader confused as there is no logical progression at a glance. It has less to do with organization and more to do with relevance. Many of the suggestions / resolutions made years ago do not hold true today and are erroneous.

[setumonroe]

Similarly I remember going through the community help articles, only to get confused looking for menus and options that do not exist anymore. Most of the information is outdated, instructing you to perform options that are not possible. Help articles, threads and post need to be current or they will be of little help. This is why I put the point forward once more.

And I am referring to "ancient" threads. Not ones from last year.

[kochubei_valeria]

Hi Setu,

Thank you for continuing the discussion about how old threads should be managed. Although we do not currently plan to close threads unless conversations become inappropriate, we will do better at moving irrelevant posts and merging threads. I would also like to note that only threads that had been active 12 months before October 2014 were migrated to the new Community platform. 

[setumonroe]

I appreciate your response Valeria, and knowing the official stance on the matter.

"12 months before October 2014" still means that any age thread could have, and have made it to the new Community platform.

Anyhow it is not that big of a deal, so I will consider the matter closed 🙂 not the thread 🙂