"Necrobumping" can be a good thing

ngoonee · 2010-03-30 03:25:39

Allan wrote:

It is a lose-lose situation for the moderation team.

Yes, unfortunately that's how discipline is like. I actually have no idea how large the mod team is (skottish I see a lot, a few others whom I can't remember off-hand and won't insult by mis-spelling their nicks), but I'm sure its not nearly large enough, as with everything else based on volunteerism.

Acecero · 2010-03-30 03:32:53

Instead of having the policy just say "All zombie topics must die after 6 months of resurrection" why can't we add something like this:

"If members have a good reason to bump an old topic, they must make sure their posts are worth adding and will not cause disjointed information before posting. It will then be up to the community and the moderation team to decide the value of the topic and the bump. Members should judge on the quality of the post before reporting on a old topic to the moderators for deep inspection. Empty posts to an old topic will be not tolerate and therefore will trigger automatic closing."

Doing it this way in the long run will force users to think twice, still encourage people to contribute, keep the angry emails down, and it's easy to follow.

Also I think it is a good idea to address all the topics that are not as likely to get closed for necrobumping such as the ones in Community Contributions, Try This, Off Topic, GNU/Linux Discussion, etc in order to decrease the confusion within the community.

Xyne · 2010-03-30 03:34:38

I basically agree with everything in Allan's post, including the bit about the wiki which was expressed earlier in the thread as well.

The thread that I mentioned in the OP was a general question about installing deb packages on Arch and it probably comes up quite often in searches. Of course this information should be in the wiki (and probably is), but if that thread comes up before the wiki page does then that's what someone is going to read, so it remains relevant in that regard.

I'm not arguing that that particular thread shouldn't have been closed either. After that final post there was nothing left to say and it surely would have led to more padding posts and maybe even someone asking for more information.

I just don't think that someone who posts useful information in a thread should be discouraged from doing so. For example, if a certain thread always comes up in the top 5 hits for a search but contains an outdated solution. I would hope that someone would bump it with a link to a wiki or another thread.

Meh, the length of this thread might imply that this is a big issue. It really isn't.

Off topic, I'm actually surprised that the forum mods get angry emails.

*edit*
+1 for Acecero's post

Last edited by Xyne (2010-03-30 04:11:17)

chrisb · 2010-03-30 03:43:08

ngoonee wrote:

litemotiv wrote:
.:B:. wrote:
How do you think we are gonna monitor those threads? There are thousands of threads around, and I'm not sure it's worth scripting something to loop through last posts and decide to close them. Doing it manually would be even more insane.
just a simple
if (post_age < x)
{
print 'reply button'
} else {
print 'replies closed'
}
I'm pretty sure its not that simple....

not that simple but simple enough

skottish · 2010-03-30 04:08:01

I'd like to step back in for a moment. The moderation team doesn't take any of this lightly. We are aware that this is community driven website and the fact that so many people are actively involved is always taken into account.

Xyne, your point about that the rules are helping to generate a lot of the feedback is true. There's absolutely no doubt about that.

Acecero, this was the intention in the first place. With the large number of people that don't ever bother to read the rules, do you feel that careful wording is going to change anything? This isn't intended to be an argument or a rhetorical question. I'd like some feedback, not only from you, but the rest of the community.

---><---

By the way, to answer a quesion that there's really no need to respond to: there's plenty of shitty e-mails coming to all of us on the mod team. The percentages are pretty low, and most of them are funny, so it seems that the community is on average mature.

Allan · 2010-03-30 04:16:35

Xyne wrote:

Off topic, I'm actually surprised that the forum mods get angry emails.

I sent you a few of my fan mails for entertainment

Acecero wrote:

"If members have a good reason to bump an old topic, they must make sure their posts are worth adding and will not cause disjointed information before posting. It will then be up to the community and the moderation team to decide the value of the topic and the bump. Members should judge on the quality of the post before reporting on a old topic to the moderators for deep inspection. Empty posts to an old topic will be not tolerate and therefore will trigger automatic closing."

My only problem with this is the amount of interpretation that is required. I know the forum rules say moderators decision is final (it also says not to discuss them on the forums ), but making decisions is always much easier when there is stricter rules to follow as then we do not get more emails accusing us of corruption (yes, we get those too!).

Xyne · 2010-03-30 04:21:18

skottish wrote:

Acecero, this was the intention in the first place. With the large number of people that don't ever bother, do you feel that careful wording is going to change anything? This isn't intended to be an argument or a rhetorical question. I'd like some feedback, not only from you, but the rest of the community.

Even if most people don't bother to read it, it still provides a reference that you can point to whenever it applies. It seems that enough people have read the current policy to know to report threads with regard to age alone. Those who didn't bother to read it are probably not concerned about reporting either. I think it would be beneficial to detail the policy to reflect actual practice.

In particular, mentioning that certain subforums are generally excluded from the rule would be wise because it would reduce the number of reports and prevent user confusion in some cases (e.g. posting in a project thread which is still alive but recently inactive).

skottish · 2010-03-30 04:21:52

Allan wrote:

... snip...
but making decisions is always much easier when there is stricter rules to follow as then we do not get more emails accusing us of corruption (yes, we get those too!).
...snip...

You? Getting accused for corruption? Never!

skottish · 2010-03-30 04:23:11

Xyne wrote:

skottish wrote:
Acecero, this was the intention in the first place. With the large number of people that don't ever bother, do you feel that careful wording is going to change anything? This isn't intended to be an argument or a rhetorical question. I'd like some feedback, not only from you, but the rest of the community.
Even if most people don't bother to read it, it still provides a reference that you can point to whenever it applies. It seems that enough people have read the current policy to know to report threads with regard to age alone. Those who didn't bother to read it are probably not concerned about reporting either. I think it would be beneficial to detail the policy to reflect actual practice.

Good point.

Allan · 2010-03-30 04:31:57

skottish wrote:

You? Getting accused for corruption? Never!

I want to be corrupt, but no-one has ever bought my something from my wishlist. Let it be know that I will accept bribes!

Xyne · 2010-03-30 04:42:10

Allan wrote:

skottish wrote:
You? Getting accused for corruption? Never!
I want to be corrupt, but no-one has ever bought my something from my wishlist. Let it be know that I will accept bribes!

What could I get if I sent you a shirt that says "will break Arch Linux for food"?

pseudonomous · 2010-03-30 05:10:37

skottish wrote:

With the large number of people that don't ever bother to read the rules, do you feel that careful wording is going to change anything? This isn't intended to be an argument or a rhetorical question. I'd like some feedback, not only from you, but the rest of the community.

I wouldn't be so sure it would help, at some point I read the forum etiquette rules and I didn't even realize that posting in old threads was something you're not supposed to do (at least, if it would otherwise be a helpful post) In practice, I reduce the moderation rules to "if it isn't helpful to anyone, don't post it". That's all I'm capable of remembering. Hopefully, this post is helpful to someone

ngoonee · 2010-03-30 05:32:37

Allan wrote:

skottish wrote:
You? Getting accused for corruption? Never!
I want to be corrupt, but no-one has ever bought my something from my wishlist. Let it be know that I will accept bribes!

Data corruption, you mean?

And yes, I'm amazed anyone would bring up corruption in a free website for a free distro.... what's the currency?

Xyne · 2010-03-30 05:52:14

ngoonee wrote:

And yes, I'm amazed anyone would bring up corruption in a free website for a free distro.... what's the currency?

It seems that you've never heard of the Arch Linux Taco Cartel.

Acecero · 2010-03-30 07:00:34

Allan wrote:

Acecero wrote:
"If members have a good reason to bump an old topic, they must make sure their posts are worth adding and will not cause disjointed information before posting. It will then be up to the community and the moderation team to decide the value of the topic and the bump. Members should judge on the quality of the post before reporting on a old topic to the moderators for deep inspection. Empty posts to an old topic will be not tolerate and therefore will trigger automatic closing."
My only problem with this is the amount of interpretation that is required. I know the forum rules say moderators decision is final (it also says not to discuss them on the forums ), but making decisions is always much easier when there is stricter rules to follow as then we do not get more emails accusing us of corruption (yes, we get those too!).

I don't think getting accused of corruption is what is most important. Since you already get all sort of angry emails, why should this account for making easier decisions (especially when they give you amusement)? What I thought was important was to allow members to have a clearer and more precise interpretation of the necrobumping policy. I don't think members here are that incapable of interpreting this new meaning because I see the majority of the community as a very smart crowd.

My idea is not perfect, but imo a change like this in the policy will allow a more universally peaceful solution.

skottish wrote:

Xyne wrote:
skottish wrote:
Acecero, this was the intention in the first place. With the large number of people that don't ever bother, do you feel that careful wording is going to change anything? This isn't intended to be an argument or a rhetorical question. I'd like some feedback, not only from you, but the rest of the community.
Even if most people don't bother to read it, it still provides a reference that you can point to whenever it applies. It seems that enough people have read the current policy to know to report threads with regard to age alone. Those who didn't bother to read it are probably not concerned about reporting either. I think it would be beneficial to detail the policy to reflect actual practice.
Good point.

Xyne has the right idea.

This is why I thought that detailing the policy more would work.

Most of the time when old topics get closed (including the one Xyne provided in the OP), the mods (and generally the members) would post direct links to the rule to give a chance for members to reflect on for future posting, as this has been observed repeatedly. This kind of practice had eventually shared a common insight among community for the majority to follow. This allowed the recognition of the policy and for future reference to be given later when another member had resurrected an old topic without being aware.

My idea was how this method was developed to be utilized again to increase the recognition given with time and members doing the same thing with repetition. It is to drill the basic idea with regard to "if the topic is over 6 months, check the quality of the post first, then report later if necessary." It will become easily as the rule becomes more familiar.

I would like some feedback on this too.

ngoonee · 2010-03-30 07:03:12

Xyne wrote:

ngoonee wrote:
And yes, I'm amazed anyone would bring up corruption in a free website for a free distro.... what's the currency?
It seems that you've never heard of the Arch Linux Taco Cartel.

Sorry, I don't value tacos ergo they can't be currency.

jasonwryan · 2010-03-30 07:11:32

Acecero wrote:

My idea was how this method was developed to be utilized again to increase the recognition given with time and members doing the same thing with repetition. It is to drill the basic idea with regard to "if the topic is over 6 months, check the quality of the post first, then report later if necessary." It will become easily as the rule becomes more familiar.
I would like some feedback on this too.

The reason there are forum rules is to moderate user behaviour - the clearer those rules are the easier it is for forum mods and the rest of the community to observe those standards. The argument that people will either not read the rules, or wilfully disregard them, does not outweigh the more compelling case for clarifying areas where we all have to exercise our judgement. I think it is a very helpful suggestion.

shacristo · 2010-03-30 11:08:25

If our preferred alternative to necrobumping is adding the information to the wiki, we should at least mention that in the rule.

Misfit138 · 2010-03-30 13:04:06

So far the bullet points I am gleaning would be:
* Necrobumping is generally discouraged in the technical issue subforums, since it can potentially create disjointed 'zombie' information which is no longer relevant due to Arch's rolling nature
* If you judge that your information is related, but more up-to-date, start a new thread and link to it from the old

Aside from the mention of specifying the technical issue SF, these are pretty much covered by the standing rule.

However, this seems to be a possible amendment:
* If you do decide to necrobump, ensure that the information is in fact relevant to the original, helpful and does not create a disjointed thread

Does this seem to sum up a general consensus?
edit: link to new from old?

Last edited by Misfit138 (2010-03-30 17:12:04)

skottish · 2010-03-30 15:52:07

Misfit138 wrote:

So far the bullet points I am gleaning would be:
* Necrobumping is generally discouraged in the technical issue subforums, since it can potentially create disjointed 'zombie' information which is no longer relevant due to Arch's rolling nature
* If you judge that your information is related, but more up-to-date, start a new thread and link to the old
Aside from the mention of specifying the technical issue SF, these are pretty much covered by the standing rule.
However, this seems to be a possible amendment:
* If you do decide to necrobump, ensure that the information is in fact relevant to the original, helpful and does not create a disjointed thread
Does this seem to sum up a general consensus?

Sounds good to me.

Xyne · 2010-03-30 16:22:47

Misfit138 wrote:

* If you judge that your information is related, but more up-to-date, start a new thread and link to the old

It makes more sense to link in the other direction. Someone who finds the up-to-date information will probably not need the old information, but someone who finds the old information would probably be interested in the new information, and the old thread will have been well indexed and thus show up in more searches, at first at least. By adding the link to the old thread, it will bump the new thread up in searches as well.

KimTjik · 2010-03-30 20:19:14

Xyne wrote:

Misfit138 wrote:
* If you judge that your information is related, but more up-to-date, start a new thread and link to the old
It makes more sense to link in the other direction. Someone who finds the up-to-date information will probably not need the old information, but someone who finds the old information would probably be interested in the new information, and the old thread will have been well indexed and thus show up in more searches, at first at least. By adding the link to the old thread, it will bump the new thread up in searches as well.

Makes sense. Hence it's probably best to have the links on both ends. It could save time for the one starting a new thread, presenting a solution, to not have to write a whole case study about it, but simply link to a [old] thread that possibly describes symptoms of issue in question.

Acecero · 2010-03-31 03:07:19

If this were to work, the member would likely have to be told to create a new thread and have them come back to the old thread to edit in the post for the link into the new thread to keep the information updated. This could be specified into the policy, so the idea spreads faster.

litemotiv · 2010-03-31 08:58:14

This thread is a fine example of how politics can turn a trivial issue into complicated rules for everyone, you guys are not Dutch by any chance are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polder_Model

"disjointed information". The solution being a multitude of scattered threads about roughy the same topic, all 'jointed' together by back/forward links? Jointing two threads together with a link is really just the same as the "next page" link within a thread, the latter without all the extra rules, wiki and sticky posts, enforcement and discussion, and without several similarly titled threads turning up in searches. If you want 'jointed' information, it's much more logical to have a single thread where people start reading from the last post back.

The more you discuss this and try to cook up a 'system' to make it sensible, the more you will see that in the end it's best to just let people post, and merely close the thread if there's a clear topical reason for it. The only thing you might want to consider is a notice when people click the reply link in an older thread: "This thread is more than 6 months old, are you sure you want to post here?". I think we generally trust people's intelligence enough to let them make that decision themselves, right? There's always the moderating team in case someone goes really overboard.

Misfit138 · 2010-03-31 14:16:38

More thoughts..

Ok, so what we have are:

* suggestions to link from old to new
* from new to old
and then
* link both ways
And further,
* just let the users post within the original thread because this will create one seamless flow of data

In trying to give the community a universal solution, it is becoming increasingly complex. Each has his own view, which makes sense within his own framework of reasoning and perspective.

Let's try to simplify this again before the oversight team comes to a final decision.

Technical issue subforum threads must remain succinct, solution-oriented and forthright. This will become increasingly messy if we allow necrobumping outright, as it will become necessary to wade through multiple paged, dated threads for an answer. When an issue is googled, no one wants to do this. I see this on other distribution forums and it is disastrous. The standing rule is in place largely to prevent this from happening in the first place.

I realize that each must have a voice, so I will keep listening. Keep it simple, though.

Arch Linux

#26 2010-03-30 03:25:39

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#27 2010-03-30 03:32:53

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#28 2010-03-30 03:34:38

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#29 2010-03-30 03:43:08

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#30 2010-03-30 04:08:01

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#31 2010-03-30 04:16:35

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#32 2010-03-30 04:21:18

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#33 2010-03-30 04:21:52

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#34 2010-03-30 04:23:11

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#35 2010-03-30 04:31:57

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#36 2010-03-30 04:42:10

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#37 2010-03-30 05:10:37

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#38 2010-03-30 05:32:37

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#39 2010-03-30 05:52:14

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#40 2010-03-30 07:00:34

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#41 2010-03-30 07:03:12

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#42 2010-03-30 07:11:32

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#43 2010-03-30 11:08:25

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#44 2010-03-30 13:04:06

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#45 2010-03-30 15:52:07

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#46 2010-03-30 16:22:47

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#47 2010-03-30 20:19:14

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#48 2010-03-31 03:07:19

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#49 2010-03-31 08:58:14

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

#50 2010-03-31 14:16:38

Re: "Necrobumping" can be a good thing

Board footer