Topic: [Suggestion] Add automatic thread lock timer to kill the megathread plague (Read 320 times)

That would only help to lock a very small minority of threads - the vast majority of threads in the spammy boards like Bitcoin Discussion are started by serial spammers who would simply ignore any such PMs. In the non-spammy boards like Technical Discussion, it's not appropriate to lock every thread which is >60 days old, for the reasons I've outlined in my previous post just above.

I think an auto-lock on the spammy boards such as Bitcoin Discussion, Economics, and most (or all?) of the altcoin boards is the best way to go.

Asking OP or sending notification to OP does not have any meaning if OP is also not active.
It is better to just lock them after 120 days of inactivity and only OP/mod can unlock it if required.

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to automate a bot to send a PM to the OP of the thread with a remainder to lock it after a certain period.
Your thread (Link Here) created on ... has seen no activity for 60 days. Please close the thread if it is no longer needed.

This turns out to be the best solution there is, really. I've seen some necroposts from 2013 that were recently brought up by newbies and lower rank members with questions and replies rehashed and repeated obnoxiously. If users themselves can't lock the thread after receiving ample amount of replies that will satisfy their questions, or if the topic itself is asking for a discussion but was left stale for the past 30 or so days, locking it automatically will be the best solution to stop megathreads. Besides, we don't expect mods of different boards to lock it one by one, and people would shout "abuse of power/authority" again if this happens.

It's been suggested multiple times and it's not bad idea. But I think such feature should be applied to several boards only, like Bitcoin/Altcoin Discussion, Economics, Trading. In boards like Marketplace threads shouldn't be auto-locked. Mainly because inactive threads are rarely bumped without any reason there. Users posting there when they have issues with that service or just want to ask some questions.

One million times this, but with the caveat that it doesn't apply in all boards.

In boards such as Technical Discussion or Technical Support, often older threads get bumped with pertinent new information, or someone who is having a problem revives a thread of a similar problem. These threads are usually fine, because these boards generally aren't spamfests, and it is often better to keep this information in one place rather than having to rehash all the basics whenever a new problem arises.

However, in boards like Bitcoin Discussion, this is needed badly. Threads are necrobumped with one line nonsense all the time. You can report 5 spam megathreads to be locked, and within 24 hours there are 10 new ones necrobumped to the first page. There are some users in there who I've seen necrobump 10 dead threads themselves in the space of about 20 minutes. These threads obviously then attract 100s of new spam posts within hours. It's just endless. It's a completely unwinnable battle to get on top of the spam when there are >1000 pages of old threads just waiting to be bumped whenever some spammer needs to be paid useless tokens.

I would also appeal to the non-spamming members to please, PLEASE use self-moderated threads and lock your threads once the discussion has run its course.

You aren't the only one concern about this, many users have raised concern in the past towards stopping the megathread plague but theymos haven't showed much concern towards added any automated thread lockers as suggested by previous user.  We have some useful megathread and this feature might affect them since thread which aren't locked by OP can't be unlocked.

Here's a previous thread this issue was discussed on;
Report Sufficiently Answered Topic(s) to Lock

And here is also a reply by loscemodelvillaggio from this thread [GUIDE] Lock Thread(s) After Receiving Enough Replies. that looks promising, it says;

It has been discussed on forum previously, Threads should be locked after a certain time , But we can't see any response from admin side. However it's not bad idea as well spammer sometimes bump very old thread then they will not able to do it. Problem is if OP try to unlock or edit thread. Because lot of useful thread on the forum. I am not supporting them lock due to time frame. Report to moderators would help on this case. You can use it to lock the thread. If moderator consider your claim they might locked the thread.

Lets stop first create multiple thread 

I agree whenever that message gets shown lock the thread and stop replies. It can be loaded when someone hits the reply button even just to make it easier..

---

I'd agree with a timer and a necro ban. The timer could be set to a year or so after the op or a mod has posted there (or maybe a user with more than 100 earnt merit).

there is already a warning saying:
but we see that this is really not working.
Therefore i also think a lock after xxx days without new post will be useful.

Intriguing, yet unsatisfying.
We all love our Wall Observers & stuff, so why kill them off?

An automatic lock to prevent accidental "necroing" of threads, otoh, would be something I would support.
I.e. lock threads after e.g. 30 days without a new post.

As we are all painfully aware, the number of megathreads with more than 50 pages is startling, with even mundane single sentence topics being absolutely inundated with replies often years after they were first opened.

Why not just have an automatic thread lock timer? When creating a thread, the default setting will be set to 7 days, meaning threads will be closed within this timeframe if one or more conditions are not met.

Some of these conditions might be;

1. OP actively responding in the thread resets the timer
2. OP adjusts the timer later on in the thread edit settings
3. A moderator adjusts or removes the timer if the thread has generated value, or is of particular importance.

Though the default setting should be around 7 days, posters should have the opportunity to change this to 30 or 60 days if they feel the thread is still generating value, or the initial query has not been adequately answered.

Thoughts?

Note that this is just an idea outline, feel free to expand or refine it, particularly the criterion that determines a risky thread, and who can control its uptime.