Auto close old threads?

[Trolling4Dollars]

I'm sure this is nothing new, but I seem to be seeing more & more of it recently for some reason. Someone replying to a thread that's been dead for a year or more, putting it back on the front page.

Of course, from there people start replying again assuming it's a new / active thread.

Sometimes the info in those threads is no longer valid & really not worth discussing any more.

Would it be possible to auto close threads that haven't had a reply in x # of days - 30 or something like that?

 

[Aesteroth]

Easy to spot the spammers - auto bumping 3 year old threads 'Good Post ', 'Wow such informations', 'This is now good to me'.

'ANTI-WRINKLE CREAM - WHERE TO BUY'.

 

[Conor]

I've been saying this for years. Just automatically ban all members with less than 500 posts. No more newbies, less spam. It's a win win.

 

[WowLancer]

I've been saying this for years. Just automatically ban all members with less than 500 posts. No more newbies, less spam. It's a win win.

No new registrations will be better but don't you think it can make marketplace limited? Some non users can search for some service in Google and end up buying here.

 

[HoNeYBiRD]

I think there's a reason, why this isn't a feature of the forum already. 30 days would be just too few imho.

 

[proxygo]

mods will always say if u see spam pointless posts bumping old threads
report it, all u can do

 

[Sristy]

What stops one from reporting ?

 

[Capo Dei Capi]

No new registrations will be better but don't you think it can make marketplace limited? Some non users can search for some service in Google and end up buying here.

You don't need to be a member to buy from the marketplace.

 

[tasburrfoot]

I've been saying this for years. Just automatically ban all members with less than 500 posts. No more newbies, less spam. It's a win win.

Or just ban everyone with an account after Jan 1, 2012.

I think there's a reason, why this isn't a feature of the forum already. 30 days would be just too few imho.

I made this same thread about a month back, and Apricot mentioned this was something they were looking into implementing.

We're looking at different ways of doing this - e.g. possibly closing threads automatically when they've been inactive for a period of time. But yes, it's a useful suggestion and I'll put it forward for consideration as it's something we want to deal with in the near future.

thread is here: https://www.blackhatworld.com/seo/forum-archive.876611/

 

[PHPInjected]

You really think that DD or any of the mods will stop allowing registrations? Next you'll want them to give you $5 for being here. Also, old threads are a good thing for research purposes and is an easy way to revamp old methods and make quick cash.

 

[tasburrfoot]

You really think that DD or any of the mods will stop allowing registrations? Next you'll want them to give you $5 for being here. Also, old threads are a good thing for research purposes and is an easy way to revamp old methods and make quick cash.

The guy saying close registrations has been saying that forever, in every post, better to just ignore him.

RE: Old Threads, that's why my suggestion is recommending an archive, not deletion. That way old posts don't continuously get bumped, but threads still exist as a knowledge base.

 

[PHPInjected]

The guy saying close registrations has been saying that forever, in every post, better to just ignore him.

RE: Old Threads, that's why my suggestion is recommending an archive, not deletion. That way old posts don't continuously get bumped, but threads still exist as a knowledge base.

That's not a bad idea really. Like SomethingAwful has an archives section, where all old threads are archived, and require a subscription to see. Archives are worth it though.

 

[bartosimpsonio]

You really think that DD or any of the mods will stop allowing registrations? Next you'll want them to give you $5 for being here. Also, old threads are a good thing for research purposes and is an easy way to revamp old methods and make quick cash.

The problem is not really reviving old threads IMO. The issue is the bots and automated posts. Purchased accounts run bots and bump 10 threads from 2010 all at once and you see "Google update EVERYTHING'S EXPLODING" way at the top of the feed and you go holy shit, click through and it's from 2009..... That's the main issue, the bots and spammers.

I hold nothing against seeing old threads per se, but it's the worthless posts that really become annoying.

 

[PHPInjected]

The problem is not really reviving old threads IMO. The issue is the bots and automated posts. Purchased accounts run bots and bump 10 threads from 2010 all at once and you see "Google update EVERYTHING'S EXPLODING" way at the top of the feed and you go holy shit, click through and it's from 2009..... That's the main issue, the bots and spammers.

I hold nothing against seeing old threads per se, but it's the worthless posts that really become annoying.

Which makes archiving seem like a better idea. Something like 500 posts can access the archives or $4.99 + 100 posts. Like a mini-Jr. Vip.

 

[proxygo]

mods prob have more on there plates these days, constant shit lists
spammers, bot accounts ect.

 

[Toz]

I just bumped a 2 year old thread of mine, a few moments ago.
This one.