Locked threads

[webmaster]

Ok, so it seems not everyone got the memo... if you missed out on the news scoop, the forum now automatically locks any thread that hasn't been replied to in more than 30 days.

See some more of my indepth thoughts/comments on the subject here:

http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showpost.php?p=128953&postcount=4

So, what are your thoughts on the matter?

Regards,

John

 

[KBayDog]

I don't know the technical issues behind it; if it helps the site run better from a techno-geek standpoint, lock 'em up and throw away the key.

However, if there is no decrease in site performance (whatever performance would be degraded by open threads...other than my performance at work because I spend too much time replying to open threads), I'd like to see them stay open. Threads aren't generally resurrected after a month, but the option should be there. I also think that after a month, if I haven't posted on a particular thread, they should name the thread after me, since I was in drama club in 5th grade.

In any event, let the mods do the locking.

 

[etnuclearsailor]

I think it is worthwhile to lock old threads. I see people answering questions asked last year or earlier, in many cases giving advice which is no longer needed. If someone needs to resurrect an old topic, I would agree with you where you say it is just as easy to start a new thread on the matter which links to the old one.

 

[KBayDog]

True, but where do you draw the line? For example, let's say the thread with the question newcomer VarmintShooter is dying to ask is locked. He will more than likely start another thread with his question, "What Percentage Get Jets." This thread will then get locked by the mods who are tired of seeing that question. VarmintShooter's question isn't answered, and he loses interest in Naval Aviation because aviators are a bunch of big meany-heads.

I am all for locking threads that are way out of line (OPSEC, inflammatory, phishy, etc.) but I say let Thread Darwinism work. New threads will be formed, old threads will die peacefully, and those worthy of resurrection will be resurrected. If a thread is resurrected and nobody wants to respond to it, the thread will remain dead. Like Zed.

 

[caeli]

webmaster,

when you say the forum automatically locks these threads - do you mean that people can't read these old threads at all, or that people just can't post replies?

 

[bch]

just can't post

 

[bennett4362]

there's no option for us to vote to always leave them open!

i agree with kbaydog, if there's no difference from the geek point of view as far as site performance, let the almighty gods, i mean mods, do the locking.

 

[VarmintShooter]

For example, let's say the thread with the question newcomer VarmintShooter is dying to ask is locked. He will more than likely start another thread with his question, "What Percentage Get Jets." This thread will then get locked by the mods who are tired of seeing that question. VarmintShooter's question isn't answered, and he loses interest in Naval Aviation because aviators are a bunch of big meany-heads.

How do I start my own thread? Be nice to me please or I may lose all interest in Naval Aviation ...

 

[The Chief]

Certainly see the logic of locking down a thread. Do not believe it will help with the net trolls but i believe the maturity (generally) of tread members handle the occasional troll very well. Ignore them is best practice.

My .02C is that you have two jewels in the forum that need more exposure. They are:

Pat1USMC summary of NFO flight school through Strike.

Turn&Burn55 summary of NFO Strike Figher.

Both are informative, charming in their own words and should be made readily available to the newbies. It seems, that after "What are my changes of getting Jets" the next question is "What is an NFO and what do they do". A prominent spot for these threads (combined) is in order.

Great forum and thank you every so much for your dedication.

 

[Fly Navy]

But then I can't use these:

Actually, I'm for locking old threads, but 30 days may be too soon, depending on topic. There are SOME topics that can be revived and still useful. That being said, most are not like that and just need to go away.

 

[Pcola04/30]

I would say overall I am for locking old threads....BUT a few threads come to mind that IMO would be a shame to see locked and all but useless...(all the gouge threads for ex...and the sim instructor thread)

Some threads are just more likely to be useful in the future, even if they go a month or two with no response.

 

[VarmintShooter]

Yeah, the gouge threads might be an exception, but on the other hand, not to bad an idea to start a new thread for new gouge ...

Locking most of the old threads harms nothing in my opinion, and people can always provide a link to them if necessary.

Only thing I can think of that might not work out is if someone has a slight variation on a previous thread we may end up starting a new thread to re-hash the same material as an old thread with only a shred of new material. On the other hand, we re-hash certain subjects regularly anyway.

 

[Pap]

I like the idea of locking the threads after 90 days. 30 days just seems a tad bit too soon. Though I do enjoy watching people post an answer to a question asked over 3 years ago???

 

[Crowbar]

I'm definitely for locking the old dogs, I'm just not sure what time frame would be right. For every clown who posts a resume in an attempt to convince AirWarriors.com that (s)he deserves a SNA/SNFO slot or an Academy appointment, there are plenty of others who have the decency not to. I don't think the lock/no-lock question will solve that one.

Plus, if something ends up locked and somebody has a BURNING question or comment to add, mods can unlock it.

I do agree with what The Cheat....Chief said, and I made Pat1USMC's and TurnandBurn55's threads stickies in the NFO forum.

 

[rare21]

i've posted my piece on locked threads way back when.....