Lock old threads

[Hooovahh]

I like the idea of someone posting a question, then 20 years later, their kid asks the same question, now working in a similar field.

[Kevin_Price]

20 years, 2 months, 10 days

Not a new record, but anything over 20 years is worth highlighting...

-Kevin P

[JÞB]

---

@Kevin_Price wrote:

20 years, 2 months, 10 days

Not a new record, but anything over 20 years is worth highlighting...

-Kevin P

---

Yet a valid newbie question that shows some research.  A bit of help on searching might be warranted.  Lets track some of those really old thread revivals for a while .....

[RTSLVU]

Duped again!

@Kyle97330 wrote:

---

@RTSLVU wrote:

---

@jraoul wrote:

I have an application which consists one one main VI running for the user interface, and one VI running in the background dealing with CAN communications.  These two VIs must communicate using global variables. 

---

Hmmm... Must they? Is that a requirement? 

A different program architecture like a QMH or CMH that have independent loops that can communicate with each other would be a better approach to this. 

---

Please note that the post you are replying to is over 15 years old...

I mean, you're not wrong in general though...

---

Please please make it so this does not happen anymore!

There is absolutely no reason for anyone to be able to respond to a 15 year old thread!

[Kevin_Price]

---

@RTSLVU wrote:

There is absolutely no reason for anyone to be able to respond to a 15 year old thread!

---

Disagree.  The ability to correct an old thread that will show up in searches and may be linked to from many other threads is, to my thinking, an excellent reason to occasionally re-open a very old thread.   Here's one of my specific use cases.

-Kevin P

[BertMcMahan]

If I had a nickel for every dead link in old threads I've found online I'd have retired. We definitely need to be able to update old threads, even if most people don't do so. The amount of extra baggage from dead thread revival is minimal.

[markwni]

@RTSLVU 

We believe that leaving the option to update old threads has an overriding priority to the need to lock them. Mostly for the reasons that @Kevin_Price and @BertMcMahan speak to. However, we do agree that it is too easy to resurrect threads and have some ideas on how to add friction to the process. For instance, adding a "Start new topic" as the default option for older topics but leave reply as a secondary option. We have not been able to tackle that yet though so there may be other solutions that arrive when we start the solution phase.

More to come.

Thanks,

Mark

[crossrulz]

I would say I am against a hard lock on "idle threads".  I think there are a couple of ways to prevent thread resurrections, but still allow them:

1. Have a dialog when trying to reply that the post is Y years, M Months, D days old and recommend starting a new thread, as recommended in the first page of this thread.

2. Put in a hard lock for users with less than, for example, 1000 posts for replying to posts older than X years.

Even a combination of these would be fine.

[aputman]

Can we at least lock this thread?  1974 days (5.5yrs) 12 hours, 50min.

[crossrulz]

---

@aputman wrote:

Can we at least lock this thread?  1974 days (5.5yrs) 12 hours, 50min.

---

But this thread has remained active.  I view the age of the last post for the idle age of a thread.