It’s really simple. People getting pulled back into discussions they buried months ago because someone found it and wanted to say their piece on a discussion that died multiple patches before. Either make a notice that the thread hasn’t been responded to since a recent patch (Kind of like “Your Topic Is Similar To” notice), or just lock threads that have been dormant for more than a month.
If someone wants to make a new discussion citing an older thread (either in part or as a whole) we have a method of doing so already. These archaic threads popping up nonstop lately is becoming a bit of a plague, it siphons attention away from threads currently under scrutiny and it pulls old actors back into a conversation they don’t want a part of.
Honestly, I think that if the thread goes unused for a set period of time, it should probably be auto-locked. I’d say a month (or roughly patch schedule) but the time is up for debate, but seven month-old threads pinging me isn’t exactly my cup of tea.
Recently there was a bug on this forum where some old threads popped up as new threads, so people respond to those thread without noticing that was an old thread. I dont see very much thread necros on this forum, so i dont really think this is an issue.
It’s really one of those things where you feel the effect more the more frequent you use the forum. Not saying you do/don’t frequent the forums enough, but at least three separate occasions this week I’ve found myself watching people argue over a discussion the OP probably stopped looking at half a year ago, and it’s a completely new discussion that simply should be a new thread as opposed to one that pings my mail because I was responded to once in July.
I see why you could consider that an issue, but the top corner of each mesagge shows the date someone posted. Although some threads got obsolete, i consider that “auto-locking” could affect negativly, some topics needs to be repeatedly adress to hit devs radar or to be consider a mayor problem. For example, the spectator chat doesnt work notify you that “Your Topic Is Similar To” (a lot of threads embrace the topic) but we didnt see progress on that matter science the game was lunch.
More threads = urgent.
A new thread can do this without incident, and without pinging fourteen people who’ve all said their piece. And it won’t pull new people into a discussion to argue with people’s opinion from so long ago that they maybe no longer agree with that position.
Re-activating a long-dead thread agitates people who are done and provides a lot of unnecessary underlying discussion points that get rehashed from a source that literally couldn’t care less.
If people don’t want to receive notifications from a thread, they can easily unselect the notifications box.
Any thread, be it dormant for years or a day, that gets a new comment is not dead.
Don’t be lazy.
Now to pose the opposite opinion - we have a problem with not being able to edit comments on old threads that we want to maintain - guides for instance that need editing once in a while - it’s a pain to keep asking the admins to edit them for us and time consuming. Old threads and comments should be full access - no question.
I mean, isn’t it possible to have this solved by a checkbox when we submit a thread?
My point is that the system should be changed to stop this, and one easy way to do that is to make threads close after 30 days of inactivity as the default setting, and all you’d have to do to avoid such a thing is uncheck the checkbox. This doesn’t have to be automatic. I think it should be standard.
You think these two things are separate issues and I don’t think they are mutually exclusive.
There is also the option to lock old threads - by asking an admin - or possibly by giving that option to the original thread maker. - both of which would and should almost always require the original maker’s approval and asking in the first place.
I think you mean the latter; plus maybe a handful of others. You’re painting with a pretty broad brush. I don’t care when old threads get rejuvinated, especially threads that are proposing new ideas or talking about issues or different ways of doing things that haven’t been addressed yet. I see nothing wrong with discussions over time, and prefer them over 5, 10, or 100 fragmented discussions over time.
Since the alternative is to have 10 or 50 different threads over a year saying the same thing, I’d much rather prefer one thread with 50+ people contributing their thoughts in that thread. Easier to read. As well, someone’s thoughts 1, 2, 6, or 12 months ago on certain things are just as relevant and worthy of being seen again by new and old forumgoers for most every topic; lest a new person thinks their idea is new and novel and warrants some sort of discussion when much discussion has already taken place that they might not know about.
Why do we need to see one new thread per month, or multiple new threads per month, talking about how people dont like matchmaking or ALT+F4ers. I say one thread is enough. If those threads go dormant for 3 months because everyone is tired of talking about them, let the new person 3 months from now rekindle the thread for further discussion. No harm done. Since you maybe participated in it 3 months ago, you’re already up-to-speed and can read the new posta. Why the new posts need to be in a brand new thread is beyond me.
Even if this idea goes into effect, auto-closure after one month is wayyy to short, imo. A year or two is more like it. But I’d actually vote for no closure except maybe for certain bug threads
Instead of locking threads, I think it would be much more reasonable for the forum to warn the user via a pop-up that they are about to revive a thread that hasn’t had any new posts for, say, 6 or 12 months, and asks them if they’re sure they want to do that.
And, yeah, as others have noted, the forum had an issue suggesting old threads. Let’s not let that blip dictate now that threads need to be locked after 30 short days.
I’ve visited this site every day for at least like 1.5 or 2 years. It’s not hard to see what is new/old, what I want or don’t want to read. Old threads being brought back to life is not agitating in the least for me. The only thing that somewhat bothers me is seeing multiple threads on the same issue. And with what you propose, that issue would just get worse and more annoying, imo.
At least two people have already agreed on my exact point based off of the likes for the post, one before it got moved to Insider section, one after. Therefore, I can safely say, it agitates “people” with confidence, not just myself. Semantics is bothersome especially when you do it poorly.
So you’d be happy with me drumming up a conversation based on something you said seven months ago because it just popped up in a thread someone thought was new because someone else was digging through seven month-old threads so you get to explain that the bonus you are claiming exists doesn’t exist anymore because it was patched out three months ago?
Cool. That happens. The fact that it hasn’t happened to you yet is your good fortune. Not everyone is so lucky.
Yeah, digging through a 600 post thread on Cav archers is a breeze. Good thing there’s no scrolling issues that start choking up forum navigation after 30 or so posts or anything, that’d really compromise your point.
Did you read my suggestion, or are you just saying things? I’m totally okay with there simply being a notice (that’s the simplest answer, the system is practically already there with “Your Topic Is Similar To” and this would be a prime way to use it) and that was the first prescriptive statement in my post. The first.
That’s why we have “your topic is similar to” and the moderator capability to merge threads. That being said, I see zero connection between my suggestion and your problem. If the thread is dead, and there’s a fresh conversation on the subject, the only way there’s a mess of threads is if someone ignores the “Your topic is similar to” prompt, or decides to necro a similar, completely dead thread. If anything, my request helps your issue, not hurts it. It’d take a very inventive stretch of the imagination that closing old threads would make any appreciable difference in the number of people who won’t look for a similar thread before posting a new topic.
Is why my very next statement was, “I think you mean the latter; plus maybe a handful of others.” I realize there will be some, maybe a ton, of people who agree with you. I was just keeping the claim in-check, as it was written in a way (whether intentional or not) that makes it seem like you were speaking for many or almost everyone as if you knew it as fact. If you made (or saw) polls beforehand, then that’d help, but there wasn’t any source cited backing your claim; so, I wanted to make sure the claim didn’t get too far adrift from potential reality – lest the admins take your claim at face value and implement the change.
I do apologize, though. I was half-asleep when I read this thread and wrote my reply, as I was still in bed… plus clocks were moved forward an hour overnight. My post was definitely written with one eye open Sorry about that! Plus, I was on my phone, and this forum is a pain to scroll up/down from phone to double-check exact words from posts you’re replying to… so I rolled with what I had. I’d say I did pretty well, all things considered
Hmm, yeah, I think I’d be cool with that! And it’s probably happened to me before. I enjoy talking with the community. And if it provides me or someone else an opportunity to help a fellow AoE gamer learn something they didn’t know was in the game already (or fixed already), I think that’s okay and cool. And if my opinion has changed over time based on new factors, experiences, or info, then it’d give me an opportunity to update the thread (and the new person) with my updated position. My mind can sometimes be changed, given new info I didn’t originally think of or consider.
On the flip side, I’ve revived other peoples’ dead threads before (ones that I’ve seen before and remembered) with the sole purpose of letting them know the issue or idea they brought up months ago (or months and months ago) got resolved in a recent patch. I think that provides a nice service to the fellow player. If the roles were reversed, I’d love it if someone were to tell me something I brought up eventually got fixed or implemented in the game.
One example where I did this was the “[Feature Request] Screenshot of Entire Map” thread, a thread that had 57 hearts in OP. For people who took part in the discussion (or future forum searchers), I felt they might appreciate knowing that Capture Age could be used to get a full map screenshot. If the thread had been locked, then giving a nice semi-closure wouldn’t have been possible. CTRL+F12 still isn’t implemented. But if/when it is, it’ll be nice to update that thread with more finalized info.
I did read it But your words to me gave a very strong bias toward wanting threads auto-locked, due to multiple mentions you gave in multiple posts of how frustrating it is to get pinged months later on old threads. Even in your OP you clearly conclude that, “Honestly… it should probably be auto-locked”. It seemed clear to me that you prefer auto-locking over everything else, want it as a standard, and even say it should be standard (i.e., uncheck a box to have it not auto-lock). If you’re equally okay with either solution, then I’m sorry I didn’t interpret that way.
I’m willing to bet moderators don’t fully enjoy the process of merging threads and would probably prefer keeping related discussions in one thread. At least for a good while.
It’s all good. I don’t want us to get into a series of itemized replies on this with every reply we have in this thread. I was just trying to share the flip side of the coin you were presenting; because at least on the surface, I disagreed. I don’t fully understand your closing statement, to be honest, but I’ll look it over a bit later and try to see what you’re saying. If your idea (auto-closing old threads) somehow helps and not hurts my plight, I’m not (yet) seeing it… but let me ponder it anyways. After some food, I might better realize
PS: One issue the forum has is getting to see the very last posts of a thread. I wish there was just a ‘jump to bottom’ button (and ‘jump to top’, for that matter). If there is one, I don’t see it. But, yeah, for lengthy threads, it can be quite a chore to get to the bottom or top due to all the scrolling and auto-page length expansions you need to wait through, which is unfortunate.
Well, if there’s a thread opened on a topic, brand new, but there’s an old one someone digs up for reference, someone finds something they want to argue with in there, and posts it, even by accident in the wrong thread they’ve now posted a duplicate thread and revived a dead thread. Both of these could be avoided with a fresh topic which references material that was debated and agreed or disagreed with in prior threads without referencing the person pushing it.
Yeah, that’s how I see it, but if the mods do something to dissuade it, I’m cool. Just because I have a strong tendency towards active forum maintenance doesn’t mean it’s a fully agreeable premise. I don’t see why we’d leave a thread to rot, and then get pulled back up in 2023 because someone wants to talk about how cool the Berserk is now. It’s just a matter of how you see the current system when pulled to the extreme ends of the examples.
Most of us can remember perusing a forum and seeing a topic multiple years old because someone was digging and decided to dredge it. That will happen with the current system and the reason it hasn’t yet is DE isn’t multiple years old yet. We’ll get there. Just solving the problem now before it becomes one seems like a no-brainer to me. I can understand why you’d think otherwise, we just disagree.
There’s some good discussion here and I wanted to jump in and offer some thoughts and solutions which may be helpful.
Please flag these necroed threads and the moderation team will take a look and deal with them as appropriate.
A couple weeks ago, I needed to move some old topics between categories and unfortunately the forums bumped the topics even though no replies were added. Please excuse my dust.
If anyone has a topic older than 30 days and would like to have it edited please send the @moderators group a private message and we’ll look into making your topic a wiki which means most users will be able to edit the topic over time.
If you click on the bell icon for each topic there is an option to control when you are notified with topic activity. When you click the bell icon there is a description for each notification option as well.
There’s no defined duration of time when a topic becomes old. I don’t want to impede the discussion by closing it if there’s still more worth discussing. Typically I have seen that once a topic has been inactive for about two months, there’s nothing left to say about the subject. Please create a new topic about the same subject if it has been inactive for this period of time or longer because there may be new info or data from a game update which makes the original topic irrelevant.
Before a forum user posts a new comment on an old topic there is a notification asking the user whether or not it is appropriate.
If you would like some help navigating the forums, I suggest checking out the Keyboard Shortcuts in the hamburger menu next to your profile picture.
But making it a wiki post doesn’t mean anyone and everyone will be able to edit that post, right?
I think HealFortress’ concern was that if he (or someone) makes a post and then admins later turn it into a wiki, that might mean any forum member will then be able to edit that post. (Wikis work this way sometimes.) But this wouldn’t happen, right?
Sorry if I misinterpreted, HealFortress. I had a similar question/concern inside after you mentioned that
RadiatingBlade, I bet the bug list is a wiki post/thread, right?
The original post would be the one needing editing solely by the original poster without end or limit or the editing feature suddenly becoming nonexistant for that original post - are you saying that if it becomes a wiki to subvert that happening that anyone will be able to edit it?
That being said all posts within a wiki should be editable solely by each individual poster if at all possible and not have their own posts edited by random users if they wish them not to - it would be preferrable if it could be an option however - the end result either way should be that each and every post in the thread may be editable indefinitely - including the original first post.