Threads should be locked after a certain time

[btccrusher]

Well, today I have faced the same thing again after the past week. I was reading around economics and altcoin sections. I found a title "Low BTC price is good for Bitcoins at the moment" that interest me to give it a reply that already has 140 replies. Since 140 replies are not that high for our forum threads, I hit the reply button. Maybe it was my mistake not see when the original post was created. Luckily, my eyes caught the dates. Oh shit! It was created in August 2015.

Screenshot 1

Screenshot 2


As time passed a long way, I think the original topic is no longer valid for now. Moreover, last week I had found 2 more posts, one from 2016, another from January 2017 (Sorry, I forgot which topic/link it was, and I didn't collect that at the time)

I think, after 2 years or a certain time, threads should be automatically locked unless it has any special permission from moderators (of course manually). How many time is best, that you guys will know far better than me.

Another option:
If the above proposal is not possible or irrelevant for now, at least we should have a thread/option to give these type of links so moderators can manually remove/lock them at least once a week.

What do you guys think about the issue?
Thank you for reading.

[1714830609]

1714830609

[1714830609]

1714830609

[Probinus]

If the thread is really interesting and further comments may apply, then I don't really think this is relevant. But for some mediocre posts that can easily trigger a SMT, then the idea of time lock could be possible.

I think there's a post like this before (also here in meta) but I didn't really got the gist of it then, same with the conclusion they might possibly discussed. Please do check it out, let's avoid making multiple posts.

[vphasitha01]

Since 140 replies are not that high for our forum threads, I hit the reply button.

I don't get the logic behind ("Since 140 replies"), explaining why you hit the reply button?

I think, after 2 years or a certain time, threads should be automatically locked unless it has any special permission from moderators (of course manually). How many time is best, that you guys will know far better than me.

I think it is better if we can go for soft indicator at the right side of the thread or bottom of the forum board that the thread has been created "X" number of years back before we going for ultimate answer of locking the threads.
Another thing I want to highlight is some of the threads are enternally true( actually at least more than 2 years) regardless of it's date of creation.so we have to be careful if we going for locking threads.The value of threads are subjective and we can't say it's useless after some times.

[TryNinja]

I think it is better if we can go for soft indicator at the right side of the thread or bottom of the forum board that the thread has been created "X" number of years back before we going for ultimate answer of locking the threads.

There is already a warning when someone tries to post in a thread that has been inactive for more than 120 days.

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

But do you think those spammers care?

I don't get the logic behind ("Since 140 replies"), explaining why you hit the reply button?

I think OP is used to SMT (Spam Mega Threads) with 600+ shitpost replies (check the Bitcoin Discussion board). So "only" 140 would be a good number (usually it's not).

[pugman]

This has been discussed to hell and back and it won't be implemented any time soon. Some discussions take place for ever,take the BTC Wall Observation thread,and theymos believes in free speech.

And spammers can open new threads and start shitposting again. Whole point is worthless.

Things like this are better off in stackexchanges(bitcoin.stackexchange.com), there they use this feature. Its not the best thing for this forum.

[TheUltraElite]

Locking threads will not have any value in stopping the shitposting attitude of members. If they want to shitpost you wont to be able to stop them from shitposting other than giving them a ban - which never happens if any rules are not broken.

Keeping the shitposting spam mega threads open is a good way to identity who is a shitposter and who is not. Then again it is also a good method to keep the shitposters separated from newly made threads - which in case the old SMT got locked they would migrate to other threads in order to repeat - which leads to complete trashcanning of the new thread.

[Welsh]

I think the current solution of locking the topic once it starts getting out of hand or encouraging low quality posts is better. It would be hard to determine on certain threads when the discussion has ended, and could potentially limit insightful new replies. Especially after a week.

Maybe, a friendlier reminder when opening topics to lock the thread when your question is answered might be beneficial though.

[vphasitha01]

There is already a warning when someone tries to post in a thread that has been inactive for more than 120 days.

Thanks for your helpful information,but I'm suggesting it is better if we can identify before we hit the reply button and not after.

I think OP is used to SMT (Spam Mega Threads) with 600+ shitpost replies (check the Bitcoin Discussion board). So "only" 140 would be a good number (usually it's not).

Can we take 600+ replies as thresold value for identify Spam Mega Threads?

[Cryptosandy1987]

It is thread creator responsibility to close the thread,when he get the answer to his question.if Every one will take it seriously,we can reduce lot of duplicate post on regular basis.

[Jet Cash]

I think the wall is a special situation, it's more of a chat room than a thread.

I have suggested that threads are auto-locked if they haven't received a reply for 3 months ( say ). If fresh news arrives, then it is better to start a new thread. and link to the old one in the OP.