Lock old threads to prevent necrobumbing.

BEEDELLROKEJULIANLOCKHART · 2025-03-29 13:57:39

In https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=148604 and https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=94061, there's a discussion about necroposting. I'm inclined to agree with most of the discussion participants there that it should be permitted. However, it currently is not, as I've unfortunately been informed a few times.

In the stead of a change to the forum ruleset, wouldn't it be better to prevent necroposting being possible, if it's problematic? To that end, automatically locking old threads might help to alleviate work for the moderators.

I'd have commented this on one of those threads for the sake of discovery, but that'd be a necropost. Hopefully they see this regardless.

Last edited by BEEDELLROKEJULIANLOCKHART (2025-03-29 13:58:32)

ewaller · 2025-03-29 15:15:48

We've thought about it. We mostly are concerned where it comes to support threads. If we were to close things automatically after an arbitrary period of time, it would interfere with some long running, sometimes dormant discussion threads. Also, we do not concern ourselves with the original poster in a thread returning later to provide updates and or closure.

The reason we are concerned with posts to old threads is because things in Linux change so fast. Sometimes we may see offering support for a problem where the original poster has not been around for months and where we have been through half a dozen kernel updates. Or have been through major revisions of a desktop environment. In these cases, the additional commentary is likely to just be left dangling with no action from the original participants and no feedback is ever generated as to whether the comment was useful in solving the issue -- again an issue that has had a long time to mutate.

Sometimes we find situations where someone with a modern problem finds an old problem with symptoms similar to a contemporary issue they are having and try to extend the thread. Again, the issue is that things change so fast that the symptoms may be similar, but the root cause could be completely different as the code base changes so fast. In this case, we prefer that a user start a new thread that they will own and link back to the old thread if they truly think it relevant. It is also a good idea to leave a note on the old thread forward linking to the new thread. Were we to auto close threads, we would lose this capability.

Just use good judgement. I personally don't consider it egregious to 'necropost' and occasionally fall into the trap myself. If you think a post could fall into the category, think twice and, if one proceeds, leave a note that it is responding to an old post and why. That, at least, will help those researching a problem in the future by providing a flag that the time had passed and that the foundation could have shifted.

BEEDELLROKEJULIANLOCKHART · 2025-03-29 16:32:56

Thanks for such a comprehensive answer. I'd like to defer to sensible judgement for this too. However, I fear that my judgement may be less sensible than yours - I'm actually on my last of last warnings against necroposting, so it seems like whatever you're adding to the threads you respond to is of more value than what I am. Consequently, do you know whether there is any time span before which one can undoubtedly consider their response to not be a necropost?

seth · 2025-03-29 17:38:16

time span before which one can undoubtedly consider their response to not be a necropost?

24h …

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=286366 21 months ago concerned that pcslite was now built w/ (mandatory) polkit support which was conditionally (initramfs) not available and 30 minutes later dismissed when the OP figured that there's now a commandline parameter and the thread implicitly solved.

21 months later you figured that's a good context to ask "how do I apply a commandline parameter" which is not only necrobumping, but also completely off-topic on a solved thread.

Let's assume you had stumbled over a 10 year old open thread where somebody was desperately asking about some bash behavior and how to work around it, checked their profile, saw they're still active on the forum and given them a meaningful answer.
Despite the 10yr gap, that's neither off topic, nor pointless - not a necrobump, you closed the problem - albeit with a little delay.

And yes: iff the process is service activated, you'd adjust it by https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/System … ided_units

BEEDELLROKEJULIANLOCKHART · 2025-03-29 18:37:25

Thanks. That'll help a lot. I'd likely have reconsidered what I was doing if they'd told me that what I'd said was off-topic, rather than criticising me for necro-posting. The former is definitely worth criticising! On that note, thanks also for the link to the docs. That looks like a better method than the PCSCD developer himself provided.

Arch Linux

#1 2025-03-29 13:57:39

Lock old threads to prevent necrobumbing.

#2 2025-03-29 15:15:48

Re: Lock old threads to prevent necrobumbing.

#3 2025-03-29 16:32:56

Re: Lock old threads to prevent necrobumbing.

#4 2025-03-29 17:38:16

Re: Lock old threads to prevent necrobumbing.

#5 2025-03-29 18:37:25

Re: Lock old threads to prevent necrobumbing.

Board footer