Encouraging users to lock threads

[Coyster]

Most threads(new topics), are currently on their 12th,13th,30th etc pages and new replies keep popping up in such threads,bumbing them to the top pages of their various/respective sections..
There is actually no problem with a thread having longevity,the issue is when such threads have all come to a culminating end long ago,but some users(mostly to fulfil post count),keep commenting on such threads back and forth..
In most of those treads the OP could be long inactive or never return to them, but users keep providing answers to his/her questions

If only threads(redundant ones) could be locked as at when due(discussions come to a culminating end/basic conclusions),I think spam posts would reduce tremendously
So my postulation happens to be that when a user makes five posts(new topic), such user is restricted from beginning a new topic until the previous five have been locked...
But since not all threads with longevity are redundant as quality discussions still go on in them,such as this one's
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4799468.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3182178.0
And such threads are usually started by high rankees,we could keep the restrictions simply to newbie--Jrmember---member rank..
But since some users in the preceding reply will be of the opinion that"a shitposter is a shitposter irrespective of ranks"
We could limit it to users who haven't earned up to 50 merits(not/excluding air dropped merits)

[1713556684]

1713556684

[1713556684]

1713556684

[1713556684]

1713556684

[The Cryptovator]

So my postulation happens to be that when a user makes five posts(new topic), such user is restricted from beginning a new topic until the previous five have been locked...

Not agree with that. All peoples are not making thread with question. There is lot of useful post made by same user, so why will they restrict to create new post? Some questions post may help others users, and may be more appropriate answer will come from others users. Some useful thread created by same user and more useful post could post by him/her. So why should restrict him from posting?

You can also help by reporting spam and reporting that kind of thread. I have done few post like this, locked by mod. For example, someone made a question post " how to upload picture on bitcointalk forum?" then many peoples are replying there, in that case you could report full thread and obviously it will locked by mod. You just need provide proper reason why are you think that post should locked.

[Steamtyme]

I could see this being beneficial if it was a rank specific thing.  Much like posting restrictions.

Brand new gets 1, newbie can have 3, and jr.member could have 5. After that you could lift the restrictions.

It could work like a revolving system if one topic is locked then they've freed up some space for another. 

Most accounts never really create a decent topic anyways, but there are several members who have many useful topics on the go at once, and I dont think they should be limited.

[TheBeardedBaby]

Many of the thread starters log in just to start the next spam megathread to have something to gain the post count for the sig. campaigns.
Those accounts are offline most of the time. Those will never lock their threads.

I could see this being beneficial if it was a rank specific thing.  Much like posting restrictions.

Brand new gets 1, newbie can have 3, and jr.member could have 5. After that you could lift the restrictions.

This can be really helpful for some sections like Bitcoin Discussions. Other like Marketplace can have different restrictions.

[Kopyleft]

I could see this being beneficial if it was a rank specific thing.  Much like posting restrictions.

Brand new gets 1, newbie can have 3, and jr.member could have 5. After that you could lift the restrictions.

That would lead to a flood of posts in the meta board by users asking 'Why was my topic locked?' without checking the latest updates.

Aside that this could actually work to reduce spam mega threads.
Points of note;
There are lots of existing spam mega threads to last a while, will they automatically be locked? Assuming of course anything of this nature is implemented.

And considering meta board is for forum related discussion, it should be exempted, also the Reputation board.

[Steamtyme]

This can be really helpful for some sections like Bitcoin Discussions. Other like Marketplace can have different restrictions.

BD was my first thought because I can think of a few users who post a link half a entrance of garbage and then promote their website/blog/guaranteed money maker.

While reporting them is working, they still survive long enough to be found and reported, then wait to be moderated.

I dont know that j would lift the restriction for the entire marketplace, just because it is one of the worst sections for this, due to the scammy nature of many young accounts there.

That would lead to a flood of posts in the meta board by users asking 'Why was my topic locked?'

I still think all changes that affect a large number if registered users should be communicated via PM. A form letter is easy to generate and most if not all users will check their PM's; also makes it easy to answer the inevitable special few. Or better yet a pop up upon logging in.

There are lots of existing spam mega threads to last a while, will they automatically be locked?

I have long felt an essential archiving and locking of the section may be a benefit. Ideally after a new moderator has also been assigned to the section. This way any OP who feels there thread wasn't a cesspool of Sig spam, could appeal to have it revived.

And considering meta board is for forum related discussion, it should be exempted, also the Reputation board.

Agreed

[Coyster]

Not agree with that. All peoples are not making thread with question. There is lot of useful post made by same user, so why will they restrict to create new post

It only normal that when a user is about to make a sixth post after making five previous ones,answers to his/her questions on the previous five should have been provided or given..
And the restrictions are limited to certain users, refer back to the OP

but there are several members who have many useful topics on the go at once, and I dont think they should be limited.

IMO a user should not be all hasty to make posts on the forum,its not like it's bad,but that could lead to posting irrelevancies,and if the 5 initial posts happen to be small, we could make it 10,and definitely one should not have a problem locking erstwhile topics,considering the fact that they all should have come to a culminating end

.
Those accounts are offline most of the time. Those will never lock their threads.

Through this suggestion they never get to make another spam attractive thread until they've ended(locked) the previous ones

That would lead to a flood of posts in the meta board by users asking 'Why was my topic locked?'

The topics aren't going to be locked my our MODS, but by the original poster if they so wish to post something new on the forum...

[The Sceptical Chymist]

If a member is asking a specific question and gets the answer he's looking for, I think he ought to lock the topic just out of courtesy, but that's just my opinion and I'm sure there are good reasons for keeping a thread like that alive.

What I think should be standard is that a topic should get locked automatically after a certain period of time of inactivity.  Since necrobumping isn't allowed, dead threads ought to be locked to prevent people from bumping them.

That would lead to a flood of posts in the meta board by users asking 'Why was my topic locked?' without checking the latest updates.

Yep, there's always going to be that.

Not agree with that. All peoples are not making thread with question.

That's true, and there are a lot of threads that should remain unlocked IF members are still actively posting in them.

[TheBeardedBaby]

I wonder if we check there last 100 threads in the Bitcoin Discussion, how many posts the thread-starters have in their own threads.
I'm pretty sure more than the have will have only 1 post (the OP).

[bitart]

...

What I think should be standard is that a topic should get locked automatically after a certain period of time of inactivity.  Since necrobumping isn't allowed, dead threads ought to be locked to prevent people from bumping them.
...

I also like this idea (see my topic from june https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4467305.0) but in the end, the conclusion is the same, nothing will change...
Let spammers to spam and let reporters to report, that's all...

[TheBeardedBaby]

...

What I think should be standard is that a topic should get locked automatically after a certain period of time of inactivity.  Since necrobumping isn't allowed, dead threads ought to be locked to prevent people from bumping them.
...

I also like this idea (see my topic from june https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4467305.0) but in the end, the conclusion is the same, nothing will change...
Let spammers to spam and let reporters to report, that's all...

If it is added to the community suggestions thread, it might get the needed attention.

[Jet Cash]

I've awarded merits in the past to posters who lock their thread when the topic becomes useful for reference only.

The merit carrot may be a better solution than restrictions and punishment.

[Marshall14]

The merit carrot may be a better solution than restrictions and punishment.

If it's simply narrowed down to merits being awarded for users who lock their posts, I think this is gonna be subject to abuse,as most users will end up making useless topics all day long and keep locking them,clogging the wheels of the system all in a bid for someone to drop them a merit or two..

[hilariousetc]

I feel like we've been over this issue several times before. Asking users to lock their threads is like asking them not to spam or make unsubstantial posts. They either don't listen or are too lazy, and lets not forget why those threads are there for in the first place (or it's why they're kept alive). Most of the people here are spammers so they love having generic threads to spam in and the more the better. Most who create them probably aren't even interested in the answer or replies. They create their generic thread, then move on to the next and the one-liners follow them. Theymos probably won't put any restrictions on how many threads people can create because he's against restrictions to being able to actually post here and I'm not sure how this would work anyway. Some threads shouldn't be locked just because they've reached x amount of pages. A better solution would be just to add more moderators to the board who lock the spam threads as soon as they see them or once they've run their course.

[eternalgloom]

There's a much easier solution for all of this, one that can be applied today even.

Just report the thread in question for being a spam-megathread, I've done so in the past for a few threads and I'm pretty sure that they were locked or just removed.
Just look at the last couple of pages and see if they mostly contain spam replies. It's usually the case with those threads.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Just report the thread in question for being a spam-megathread, I've done so in the past for a few threads and I'm pretty sure that they were locked or just removed.

This is true, but I've noticed over the last few weeks as I get more and more megathreads locked, that old ones just pop up in their place. Old threads that have 30+ pages but have had no replies for a month or more are bumped with insubstantial spam to the front page, and then the whole spam cycle starts again as shitposters flood these threads with their one liners. You can report them and they will get locked within a day or two, but not before another 5+ pages of shit have been added on to them, and then another old thread is simply bumped and we start again. With literally thousands of old threads available to be bumped, there's not way to keep on top of them all without board specific mods who can clamp down on this sort of thing within minutes of it happening.