Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

Xyne · 2009-01-04 07:05:42

When looking over the new posts, I found this thread: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=50859

It was opened about 6 months ago after which it lay idle until a post today and then it was closed. The topic was somewhat interesting and there was no hostility in the thread. I can't see any reason for closing it and I've noticed a few other topics that have been closed without any clear reason. Is there a policy here or is this left entirely to each mod's discretion? Why wasn't it just moved to "topics going nowhere" instead?

Allan · 2009-01-04 07:12:51

Reviving long dead posts results in zombie posts. If you have watched any zombie movies at all, you will know it is important to kill zombies immediately or else they will spread...

iBertus · 2009-01-04 07:23:38

Some mods seem to be more irritated by reviving old threads than others. Personally, I think thread older than a year or so should be automatically locked unless the discussion is evolving and relevant to the current state of Arch. Once a thread gets several hundred posts, it's difficult to follow anyway and most people don't read completely before posting.

u_no_hu · 2009-01-04 07:43:24

But is it necessary to kill them? Cant we show a bit of mercy to those old threads who had done their fair share for this forum? Cant we just allow them to rest peacefully and finally die the natural death ? Rather than shoot them just because the woke up unintentionally?

skottish · 2009-01-04 07:44:59

I closed it because of the combination of its content and its age. The age was the predominant factor. If it was some old, unsolved configuration issue, I wouldn't have touched it. But a old thread on branding...

iBertus · 2009-01-04 08:08:50

u_no_hu wrote:

But is it necessary to kill them? Cant we show a bit of mercy to those old threads who had done their fair share for this forum? Cant we just allow them to rest peacefully and finally die the natural death ? Rather than shoot them just because the woke up unintentionally?

I think killing them is the best way. With a bleeding edge distro like Arch, threads old threads are less useful to the community than for say something like Debian. I get on average 2-3 pages of new posts now each time that I access the forum and it just adds to this clutter if people bump old, useless threads. Not long ago, someone bumped a thread from BEFORE I came to the forum. Probably most of the software involved in that thread is drastically different now, and the community gains nothing by having this thread pop up on the new posts list.

Xyne · 2009-01-04 09:31:09

I could understand that if the thread was about something that was no longer applicable but its age didn't seem to affect its content in any way, and there were only a few posts so it wasn't too much to follow either.

Instead of locking them, why not just move them to "off-topic" or "topics going nowhere"? There's no point that I can see in locking it yet keeping the thread... seems like useless clutter and someone would have to restart the topic if they wished to discuss it. If space is an issue (which would be surprising, especially with the no-delete policy), why not just auto-prune threads in those forums that have been inactive for x months?

kgas · 2009-01-04 10:22:02

I agree with skottish. IMHO threads which are not related to arch linux or related issues need not be more than 3 pages. Opening of similar topics again is also not a good sign.

ibendiben · 2009-01-04 11:28:01

who got hacked?

peets · 2009-01-04 21:38:58

ibendiben wrote:

who got hacked?

Not yet...
but great sig. w00t TED.com!

haxit · 2009-01-04 22:17:08

I think this post might be closed....

skottish · 2009-01-04 22:24:24

haxit wrote:

I think this post might be closed....

Nah. It hasn't had it's six days of life yet.

haxit · 2009-01-04 22:25:12

skottish wrote:

haxit wrote:
I think this post might be closed....
Nah. It hasn't had it's six days of life yet.

Ah, that is what I thought
Also there is the answer to this thread (partially).

Last edited by haxit (2009-01-04 22:26:31)

ibendiben · 2009-01-05 18:12:23

peets wrote:

ibendiben wrote:
who got hacked?
Not yet...
but great sig. w00t TED.com!

I admit, you're right

daf666 · 2009-01-05 19:19:31

I think closing posts in general is very unproductive and should never occur unless its a flame war or profanity (although I like flamewars and I am not offended by profanity...).
I have witnessed several posts like that this one before.
I do appriciate like all of us should, the devotion of the ops, but I hope they are not competing with eachother in "doing their jobs" too hard
I am sure the devs and lord agree with this policy, unless it would have been changed.

Mr Green · 2009-01-05 20:15:28

Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

Yes, but try to be as flexible as possible to cater for everyone and you will upset someone along the way

Generally Arch Forums are a nice place to visit and I for one want to keep it that way....

Anyone who has a problem about forums please contact me and any of the MODs so we can deal with any issues you may have in private..

Xyne · 2009-01-05 20:21:53

Just for clarity, I didn't have any real issue with that thread being closed. I just didn't see any reason for doing so.

Btw, I thought you only requested to be "mod for a day", Mr Green

Mr Green · 2009-01-05 20:55:54

Mod for the day well liked it so much .....

Xyne · 2009-01-05 21:21:32

Power is seldom relinquished willingly.

moljac024 · 2009-01-05 21:28:46

Hehe, glad you made it Mr Green. Are you shooting for Emperor ?

On topic here, I've also noticed that too many threads started getting closed recently.
I'm not a huge fan of thread closing...

Dusty · 2009-01-05 21:48:29

moljac024 wrote:

Hehe, glad you made it Mr Green. Are you shooting for Emperor ?
On topic here, I've also noticed that too many threads started getting closed recently.
I'm not a huge fan of thread closing...

So don't close any.

--

I would expect some changes in the moderation system here. More mods have joined the team, inactive ones have left and new policies are still being hashed out. This is a long overdue response to the incredible influx of new users lately. Arch has gone mainstream, but the forums are still run like its a small community.

I believe the increasing number of closed threads is a good thing. The way I see it, threads that go to multiple pages are a complete waste of time; if a new user wants to find information in one, they have to wade through loads of cruft. For example, every time I do a forum search, I completely ignore threads over 4 pages. Even if the solution I am looking for is in that long thread, I don't have the patience to find it.

Similarly, multiple threads on the same topic are a complete waste of time. If I do a forum search that yields 40 questions, and only two of them have answers, 38 of those threads are going to be in my way.

The moderation of these forums has always emphasized the long term utility of posted data. Every worthless post (and there have been an alarming number of them lately) interferes with that goal.

The best solution would naturally be for people to refrain from posting if they have nothing to say or add. This is, of course, unlikely, as people have a tendency to assume their voices are stronger than the dozen or so people who have already said the same thing. Closing threads proactively helps keep them from getting out of hand. These moderators have all been using the forums long enough that I trust their intuition to know when a thread has used up its utility and is ready to be closed.

I applaud the new moderation policies and attempts and experiments to cope with the exponential growth these forums are experiencing. I'm sure there will be mistakes and failures, but having spent far too much time in their shoes, everyone, please remember, they're working for the good of the community, and not against it.

Dusty

Xyne · 2009-01-05 22:27:45

Most of the replies in this thread only apply to problem->solution threads. The thread that I cited was a general discussion thread. I think it adds to the community to be able to discuss off-topic and tangential subjects as long as it doesn't lead to flaming. The forum should be more than a collection of questions and solutions as long as everything ends up in the right area.

Having a 4-page thread to resolve a simple pacman error would be pointless (although skimming a thread to find a solution is hardly a feat of great patience), but having a 4 page thread discussing the symbolism behind branding your case could be interesting to many and is hardly likely to lead to duplicate threads.

Taking the KISS principle to the level of "all threads must be less than x pages and discuss direct issues" in the forum seems unnecessary. You may as well demand that all posts be in compressed lojban or newspeak in that case to prevent verbal cruft.

Misfit138 · 2009-01-05 23:13:43

Xyne, you make some good points.
My best response is: The mod team is constantly working to improve things for the community. This includes continuous adjustments, exercising good judgment, good policies, and keeping the forums orderly, peaceful and peaceable.
We're not perfect, but please work with us. (I personally appreciate your contributions, in the form of powerpill, as well as informative and helpful posts.)
As was mentioned, the community is growing very quickly.
Let's all do our part to improvise, adjust, adapt and improve this most excellent thing that is Arch.

Xyne · 2009-01-06 10:06:26

Thanks Misfit138.

This thread really wasn't a complaint, just a matter of curiosity (if it were the former, I would have been obliged by forum tradition to append about 5 more question marks to the thread subject ). If the tone comes across as anything else, I apologize. I really just wanted to get an idea of the reasoning behind closing certain threads because it didn't make sense to me. I also understand that each mod exercises a certain degree of discretion and that that leads to variations in policy application. I wasn't even criticizing that (at least not consciously, sorry again if it came off that way).

dhave · 2009-01-06 13:30:30

Dusty wrote:

I believe the increasing number of closed threads is a good thing. The way I see it, threads that go to multiple pages are a complete waste of time; if a new user wants to find information in one, they have to wade through loads of cruft. For example, every time I do a forum search, I completely ignore threads over 4 pages. Even if the solution I am looking for is in that long thread, I don't have the patience to find it.
Similarly, multiple threads on the same topic are a complete waste of time. If I do a forum search that yields 40 questions, and only two of them have answers, 38 of those threads are going to be in my way.

It seems like it's hard to have both these things, i.e., no long threads, and also no new threads on same or similar topics. What should someone do if he or she has a question that pertains to an existing, but already longish, thread?

Dusty wrote:

I applaud the new moderation policies and attempts and experiments to cope with the exponential growth these forums are experiencing. I'm sure there will be mistakes and failures, but having spent far too much time in their shoes, everyone, please remember, they're working for the good of the community, and not against it.

I'm very happy with forum moderation here, too. When I've started a few stupid or going-nowhere threads, they've been quietly closed or even entirely zapped without a lot of fanfare, which I appreciated. The mods use good discretion in how they handle things. The Arch forums are among the most civil that I've participated in. If I'm in the mood to spar about politics or (shudder) religion, I can find somewhere else to do it.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-01-04 07:05:42

Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#2 2009-01-04 07:12:51

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#3 2009-01-04 07:23:38

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#4 2009-01-04 07:43:24

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#5 2009-01-04 07:44:59

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#6 2009-01-04 08:08:50

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#7 2009-01-04 09:31:09

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#8 2009-01-04 10:22:02

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#9 2009-01-04 11:28:01

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#10 2009-01-04 21:38:58

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#11 2009-01-04 22:17:08

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#12 2009-01-04 22:24:24

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#13 2009-01-04 22:25:12

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#14 2009-01-05 18:12:23

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#15 2009-01-05 19:19:31

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#16 2009-01-05 20:15:28

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#17 2009-01-05 20:21:53

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#18 2009-01-05 20:55:54

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#19 2009-01-05 21:21:32

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#20 2009-01-05 21:28:46

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#21 2009-01-05 21:48:29

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#22 2009-01-05 22:27:45

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#23 2009-01-05 23:13:43

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#24 2009-01-06 10:06:26

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

#25 2009-01-06 13:30:30

Re: Is there a coherent policy for closing topics here?

Board footer