Topic: Report Sufficiently Answered Topic(s) to Lock (Read 530 times)

If there are still mega-threads existing I think adding more moderators on sections where there is a lot of mega threads can be a solution, the clean-up can be faster and I think they will be more responsive with your request. Also I think it is a good idea to change the "Report to Moderator" function to handle more than "abusive or wrongly posted message" as I think it would be more appropriate rather than sending a personal message to one of the mods. If they changed the Report to Moderator" function where you can ask for lock-request on sufficiently answered threads then it would be a great help on their part of cleaning up the forum.

You have no evidence that suggests they are responding to "lock-requests." The moderators are locking spam threads, this doesn't mean that your reporting is being considered to achieve that. The scent of self-centrism is quite off-putting.

Have the moderators explained that they are responding to "lock-requests," or are you making messy conclusions, based on half-baked premises?


That's a little bit rude and self-serving of you. There are other conversations and suggestions being discussed, and it would seem abrupt and pointless to lock the thread simply because you believe to have gotten what you wanted from it.

I will lock the thread when I feel it has been sufficiently discussed or there is nothing to add. Do not act condescending and attempt to order people around.

I'm mostly interested in hearing a staff member, moderator or someone with close-contact to such members as they would have a better perspective on the situation than the single anecdote you've provided.

I see 

Anyways, the good news is: They (Moderators) are now responding to "lock thread" requests.
I tried it twice (With the right reasons) and afterwards they locked the reported threads.

In one instance, I PMed the Author right after using the "Report to Moderator" button.
After a few hours the user had sent me a PM saying that "a mod already locked his thread".

You can lock the thread now.

I know exactly what you were talking about. I have no idea what you're attempting to get at with this post, though. I was simply pointing out that fixing a portion of the necro-posting problem will solve a portion of the spam problem. I'm unsure what part of what I said was hard to grasp, because I kept it short, sweet and explained it multiple different ways.

A lot of the spam is made possible by someone reviving a thread that has already fizzled out and regular spammers avoid. I only quoted a portion of your message, because your premise and conclusion were incorrect. It was the heart of your message, the main point and the only portion compelling a response from me.

Which part of my post indicated that I don't understand what you're saying?

All you said was "Auto-Lock won't solve Spam" and then proceeded to give what you believe to be improvements to the Auto-Lock suggestions. So you've made your position abundantly unclear and without substance.



Another bad idea, because all this would do is require the spammer to acquire a higher ranking account to begin threads and allow them to create an entire family tree of spam-threads. It would make higher ranking accounts even more valuable to spammers.

I absolutely agree with this, though I know it's an extreme position to take and it's unpopular as well.  The vast majority of threads created by noobs are to ask questions that have already been asked a hundred times already, and all the noob has to do is use the search function to find his answer--and they can't be bothered to do this.  And if newbies were restricted in this way, it would also solve the problem of bots creating new accounts and spamming nonsense, like we've seen in the past (though I think this has been solved, perhaps with the captcha).

I mean, come on.  You wouldn't be creating a serious hardship by not allowing newbies to make new threads.  It might be somewhat inconvenient for them, but such is life.  I wasn't here when there was a noob jail, but it sounds like a great idea as well.

I said "that" means that I'm talking about the quoted part from TheQuin's post (above the paragraph) which is the "lock after x number of days without post".
And you quoted only a part of my post which broken the whole statement.

Did you even read my whole post, including the quoted message?

@Jet Cash Read the first sentence of my post above.

Necro bumping and spam fests are not the same problem. If a thread hasn't had a reply for 3 months (say), then it could be auto-locked. If some new event turns up that affects the issue in the thread, then the new topic can be posted with a link to the old thread.

It has been awhile since I've gotten a chance to loop back around to this thread, but I have to disagree with what you've said here. The Necro-posting inevitably provokes those threads to be a part of the spam problem. If they had been locked prior to the necro-post, then the spammers would not swarm into the thread. It is a domino affect in many cases, where a necro-post, due to a lack of locking the thread begins the cycle of spamming the thread endlessly. I think the auto-lock feature would help with quite a lot.

The only problem with this that I see is that when people are searching for that topics subject they'll be presented with multiple topics which have been split up making it more inconvenient. Mega threads just need to be moderated heavily and I would start reporting the posts if I knew exactly what is and isn't allowed on a mega thread. Imagine having 10 separate threads forked on the same subject. It's no different to having it all in one place.

The problem with this is: threads that are needed to be locked are the ones which receives regular posts, thus, those will not get locked.
Using that "auto-lock" feature will help necro-posting but not the spam problem.

Together with automatic or moderated "report spam" and...
Including the Author's Rank, Last Active Date and new Poster's Rank to the basis might lessen the harm on thread locking automation.

Examples:

• The threads of a Newbie-Member account which last login date was a year ago needs to be "soft-locked" after X period of time, only Full members or above can post a reply triggering "unlock" to the thread. That way, necro-posting newbies cannot revive an old thread, only established members can.
• A thread of an active Full Member was reported as "spam thread" (can be automated or moderated), the Author will receive a notification about a request to lock his thread. Since the Author is active, he can receive and respond to that notification, this can apply to active newbies and members as well.
• A thread of an inactive Full Member was reported as "spam thread", the thread will be "soft-locked" but will not be automatically locked.

In regards to the notification, it could be a warning for a read-only or ban-able offence in extreme case scenarios.

Still, the best way is to get this moderated by responding to "lock this thread" reports, but that's much of a hassle for Moderators.

Although I agree that would be useful in many cases, threads like this one would be locked as well: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-am-pretty-confident-we-are-the-new-wealthy-elite-gentlemen-12156

I think it will be worth to keep bumping the thread with comments in the future if price skyrockets.

I've revised my opinion after reading the post by botany. I agree that it would be better to create a new "fork" thread referring to the original one. This would also simplify moderation.

Fair enough, they would know better than either of us and I haven't read up on anything of the sort. So you'd know better than me and I'll take your word on it. I like the idea of an auto-lock after X days with no posts. I'm in the same boat, I hate to miss a direct reply to me.


This might be a salient point, because frequently there is points of discussion that are valid to be discussed that the OP may not have considered. I would think that something along the lines of selecting between a couple options when creating a thread might help; "Closed-Ended Question" or "Open-Ended Discussion", something along those lines. At least this could avoid extra spam and cutting discussions short that need extra context or input.

---

Bump

The auto lock feature suggested by some members sounds nice and it can help a lot. May of these threads are created by new members who just ask a query and then never come back here. They are not going to read the suggestions being added by members here. One reason i think the admin might had not implemented is because of the traffic these posts might be getting. Updated posts or content in ranked higher and thus it helps for search engine traffic.

This is based on what I've seen the moderators say many times so maybe file it under the opinion of those dealing with it every day. 

I'd just be happy if there was an auto lock after x days with no posts system and the OP could reopen if they need to. I always want to check threads I've posted in for replies directed @ me and it is a real pain when dead threads are bumped for no reason.

The problem is that the secondary points are buried deep inside these threads. There are threads with 100+, 200+ pages, which not many people give a second look. Unless it is a thread like the Wall Observer thread in Speculation, it is best to lock these threads.
Secondary points can be brought out in new threads. I would prefer that to having a spam thread which goes on and on.

I've revisited this thread, and a thought occured to me with regard to tech questions.

Although the initial query was answered, there may be secondary points that arise, and discussion of these could be of benefit to members.

I agree that repeated postings of the same solution are of no benefit to members.

With this being the case, then I can't imagine it would be that hurtful to get rid of the mind numbing amount of meaningless content. Our lurkers are more valuable than our spammers, so if we can even transform any amount of the latter to the former then we'll be in better shape. I'm skeptical that our traffic driven by searches would be harmed, because I'd be willing to bet that the only searches these spammers are driving is airdrops and ICOs. The quality searches, that will drive creative, intelligent and long-term users that are coming for the right reasons are going to be searches that will remain at the top of search engines regardless. I don't think this site has any significant competition, but I might just be naive.


I would argue that they shouldn't pay less, because the quality of traffic would go up at least proportionately to the amount of spam that's reduced. Speculation and opinion as you say though, until something is done with tangible results.


Would this not also fall under the opinion and speculation category? I haven't seen much evidence for this, at least in the thread I reply it seems that OP is genuinely interested in getting an answer most of the time, but then get lazy about locking the topic or simply unwatch the thread and never come back. I've been proven ignorant on many things though, so I'm not saying you're wrong; it just seems ironic to place the one as speculation and not this.


The OP of a random thread is capable of unlocking the thread, so if they're not satisfied they can continue their search. Mistakes are not costly in this scenario.

Just to make sure you don't waste your time and readers here please do us favor report this topics because I see you already have a lot supporter to your cause

Your thought was good but in some point, have you consider the satisfaction of an OP? You can also look diffirent angle like he/she finding a reliable answer or unique answer that can meet his/her satisfaction.  As an example, if I am going to create a thread then I will wait reliable answer until I satisfy. Different people has a different perspective right? correct me if I'm wrong