We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

Locking old threads


simonjary
Resolved

Likes # 1

In a further bid to make these forums less prone to spam bot attack we're going to look at locking older threads.

Currently a spam bot can reactivate an old thread, which pushes it to the top of that forum list, where it becomes live again despite its age and resolved status.

Also, old threads in forums such as Consumerwatch sometimes get hijacked, rather than new threads being opened for new problems.

Locking older threads should stop that.

Regards,

Simon Publisher, PC Advisor

Like this post
BT

Likes # 0

Good idea.

I reckon a couple of months should be adequate.

Like this post
Aitchbee

Likes # 1

This thread is starting to sound like the 'Council of Elrond' while the 'ring-bearer' is away on holiday...asleep.

Where, the Council of Elrond are 'the respected forum members'

and the ring-bearer is the forum editor.

Refering to 'The Lord Of The Threads' ...of course...Threadseses.

Like this post
morddwyd

Likes # 0

Six months for me.

Not being able to post for four weeks is not unusual for many people.

Most of the Lazarus threads are at least eight months old, and in many cases much older.

Like this post
Quickbeam

Likes # 0

Lazarus should be used to being resurrected after all this time.

Like this post
woodchip

Likes # 0

Three Months for me

Like this post
woodchip

Likes # 0

the one that may suffer from this is Consumer Watch Forum, It may need to be longer on that due in part to tooing and froing With Lost PC's and Warranty's

Like this post
Quickbeam

Likes # 0

"Obviously as this is a new idea it looks like trial and error until they get it right."

Which is why 3 months is a good starting point. If you go straight to 4 weeks, we'll all be complaining bitterly within a very short time, PCA should know how fickle we can be over nothing at all, we've only just stopped moaning about the site changes... well almost!

Like this post
lotvic

Likes # 0

Quickbeam, that's a very good point

Like this post
morddwyd

Likes # 0

"we've only just stopped moaning about the site changes."

Speak for yourself!

Like this post
wee eddie

Likes # 0

Earlier in the day I roughed out a posting and then decided to hold my fire and see what others thought. I'm glad I did.

I am of exactly the opposite opinion to the rest of you.

I would, initially, lock all threads started more than 1 year ago. The proviso being that I would review the situation in several months time, with the intention of deciding if a 6 monthly Life Cycle might be more appropriate.

My own feeling is that a 13 week Life Cycle is too short, even though most Threads have run their course by that time.

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

6 cheapest 4K TVs in the UK 2014: Get a UHD telly without breaking the bank

IDG UK Sites

Apple MacBook Air (11-inch, 256GB, Early 2014) lab tests and benchmarks

IDG UK Sites

How to stop your parents opening and responding to phishing emails

IDG UK Sites

Google to ship first Project Ara developer boards in July