Suggestion: Threads older than 2 months, auto-lock themselves.


Recommended Posts

I know that certain forum software has this ability... but I don't know if Neowin's does or not.

I'd like to see it if a thread sits unactive for two months, it automatically locks itself.

Why?

I'm seeing quite a few threads being rebumped up by new faces not paying attention to the date which threads are posted and this would solve a ton of issues.

It'd also stop spam bots from bumping up old threads with spam messages.

There are plenty of legitimate threads that can remain open for longer than two months. Example: a member posts a problem in say Hardware Hangout, and doesn't get any solution. Then a few months later, he discovers a fix. Instead of spawning a new thread, he can simply bump his old thread so other readers can have some backstory to follow.

The status quo's fine. Staffers can attend to any threads they see randomly bumped by spammers.

Your suggestion holds water though for news comments. (and you probably heard that already months ago)

I wouldn't object to that suggestion. Disregarding my opinions, there is probably a legitimate reason for thread auto-locking.

You'll have to ask the devs though, if it's feasible.

There are plenty of legitimate threads that can remain open for longer than two months. Example: a member posts a problem in say Hardware Hangout, and doesn't get any solution. Then a few months later, he discovers a fix. Instead of spawning a new thread, he can simply bump his old thread so other readers can have some backstory to follow.

The status quo's fine. Staffers can attend to any threads they see randomly bumped by spammers.

Your suggestion holds water though for news comments. (and you probably heard that already months ago)

I think you're right. I haven't seen any major issues.

There are plenty of legitimate threads that can remain open for longer than two months. Example: a member posts a problem in say Hardware Hangout, and doesn't get any solution. Then a few months later, he discovers a fix. Instead of spawning a new thread, he can simply bump his old thread so other readers can have some backstory to follow.

The status quo's fine. Staffers can attend to any threads they see randomly bumped by spammers.

Your suggestion holds water though for news comments. (and you probably heard that already months ago)

I think you're right. I haven't seen any major issues.

I personally see this causing more issues then it would solve. Members would need to PM a staff member to open a thread back up, rather than someone on duty to close an old bumped thread.

It doesn't hurt anybody, and yes it is annoying, but no full-proof solution.

I agree with Andrew_Lyle. The current way of closing threads that have been revived is better. It gives the staff member the option of closing it or leaving it open (if it's an official discussion thread, etc).

What if someone googles an issue they have a question on, finds a thread from say, 2005, and needs to ask a question regarding it.

It's more steps involved to have them create a new thread, explain the issue, and go from there, rather than just being able to bump an old thread with the needed question. Some won't even bother, and will go elsewhere for a solution.

There is nothing wrong with bumping old threads, providing something relevant is posted.

Mod's can use their judgement accordingly, and if the issue isn't releveant, the post can be deleted, and the thread sent back to the dead.

I think that threads should auto-lock eventually, but two months is way too soon. I think something like 1-2 years is a long enough time to wait before locking a topic.

Most of the time, when an old topic is bumped, I don't notice how old the thread is, and neither do many other users. It causes confusion, and the thread ends up getting locked anyways.

I actually would prefer that the person started a new topic, rather than bumping a thread that's almost five years old:

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...#entry592038324

I actually would prefer that the person started a new topic, rather than bumping a thread that's almost five years old:

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...#entry592038324

I agree with this. To be honest, for "I have a problem" threads it is almost always more appropriate to start your own topic than try and hijack someone elses (regardless how old it is)

I think that threads should auto-lock eventually, but two months is way too soon. I think something like 1-2 years is a long enough time to wait before locking a topic.

Most of the time, when an old topic is bumped, I don't notice how old the thread is, and neither do many other users. It causes confusion, and the thread ends up getting locked anyways.

I actually would prefer that the person started a new topic, rather than bumping a thread that's almost five years old:

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...#entry592038324

And the mods locked that thread within 2 hours of it being bumped. I don't think there is anything wrong with the way it works now. Unless the mods are having issues about locking too many bumped threads I don't see why it would bother the standard users.

I'd like to see it if a thread sits unactive for two months, it automatically locks itself.

Why?

So you want more posts that might be discussing the same topic or problem. You don't want many of those threads full of questions with no solutions or answers coming up on Google searches. You might be digging around google search results only to find 95% of those links lead to unsolved and locked threads. It is best to leave those open so people can post solutions. I had a few problems and they took months to solve. In the end, I posted my solution to the existing post instead of creating another post so anyone who google search would find the question AND the answer in one click.

This is a legit reason why forum runners should never lock old threads, otherwise the forums would only get bigger and messier.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!