Instead of closing old threads make new posts in them not push them up

[olgerm]

My suggestion is to stop closing threads just because too long time has passed since last posting to these, because too long time has passed since starting of these or on reasons like "Further discussion here is pointless." or "This thread has run its course.". It would not harm anyone if those, who are interested of the topic of thread, could keep discussing it in the thread. Only negative effect of keeping these threads open, that I can see, is that new posts to these would put these to top of the list of threads and it would make newer threads less noticeable.
My suggestion is that instead of closing such threads these could could be put to mode, where new posts to these threads would not make the thread come to top in list of threads in forum. For example posting to this https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/gravitomagnetic-experiment.824048/ thread would not make it come to top of list of threads on this https://www.physicsforums.com/forums/classical-physics.61/ page nor this https://www.physicsforums.com/forums/electromagnetism.302/ page .

 

[Rive]

If you have a really relevant, worthy continuation to an already closed topic you can always ask a mentor to open it for posting.
Quality posts (if really relevant) will go through.

 

[PeroK]

You can also start a new thread and link to the old thread for reference. One issue with posting in an old thread is that the original posters may have gone. And, I don't necessarily want to respond to someone quoting a post of mine from five years ago. After a while, a thread needs a fresh start, IMO.

 

[olgerm]

If you have a really relevant, worthy continuation to an already closed topic you can always ask a mentor to open it for posting.
Quality posts (if really relevant) will go through.

I have been refused 1 time.

One issue with posting in an old thread is that the original posters may have gone. And, I don't necessarily want to respond to someone quoting a post of mine from five years ago.

Even if you do not reply, it should not bother you if somebody quotes your post from long time ago.

You can also start a new thread and link to the old thread for reference.

It is easier to read about the topic if it is in 1 thread.
One of the reasons I suggested that idea is that I sent link to my one of my posts to a friend. While discussing the topic I noticed some mistakes in my posts and some thing, that I would like to add to my post, but I could not edit my post nor post anything new to the thread because the thread were closed. We adjusted these issues over email, but it would be easier for others, to whom I send links to my posts, and to people, who find these links themselves, if they could read these adjustments and additions directly from the thread.

 

[Ibix]

I observe that the 2015 thread that you'd like to post to quietly without attracting attention is on the same topic as this one, this one and this one from 2020-2022. All three of those were started by you, and were closed because you refused to accept that the effect you wanted to measure was many orders of magnitude below detectability, even if the approximation you wanted to use was valid for the experiment (and I don't think we were clear on that).

 

[PeroK]

Even if you do not reply, it should not bother you if somebody quotes your post from long time ago.

I don't like to ignore someone if they ask me a question about a post of mine. It is a nuisance if the post is five years old.

 

[weirdoguy]

I have been refused 1 time.

Then maybe it wasn't relevant and/or worthy continuation.

 

[olgerm]

I don't like to ignore someone if they ask me a question about a post of mine. It is a nuisance if the post is five years old.

You feel bad about ignoring someones question? Not answering a question is bad, but not leting them to even ask (by closing thread) is even worse.

 

[weirdoguy]

but not leting them to even ask (by closing thread) is even worse.

Again - they can start a new thread with the question.

 

[berkeman]

Again - they can start a new thread with the question.

Not if the thread was closed because there were problems with it. That could be considered re-opening a locked thread, which is against the PF rules.

This quote is applicable, I believe...

I observe that the 2015 thread that you'd like to post to quietly without attracting attention is on the same topic as this one, this one and this one from 2020-2022. All three of those were started by you, and were closed because you refused to accept that the effect you wanted to measure was many orders of magnitude below detectability, even if the approximation you wanted to use was valid for the experiment (and I don't think we were clear on that).

When in doubt, PM a Mentor to see if it's okay to start a new thread when you want to discuss something from a locked thread.

 

[fresh_42]

If a new post adds to an old discussion, then it is either repetition or you force all readers to reread all old posts. I do not want to check all old posts only because someone found a thread by chance.

Starting a new one makes much more sense.

 

[anorlunda]

There is a difference between a Wiki (such as Wikipedia) and a forum (such as PF).
In a Wiki, you may be able to go to an old article and edit it. If accepted, the edited version is presented to future visitors.

A forum thread is not like that. @fresh_42 just explained one of the main differences.

 

[fresh_42]

Just this idea to not let others to ask question ...

which is simply not true

... so that you wouldn't feel bad for not answering their questions is just unbelievably ridicilous.

No. This comment is.

It is like cutting of your hand so that you wouldn't injure your hand.

As mentioned above: start a new thread.

An open old thread to which someone adds a new post is a discussion in which all but one participant have left the building. Yes, the ancient Greeks might have had monologues on their forums, but they also have had no internet. We have the insight blogs for monologues that deserve listening, pardon, reading. The forums are for polylogues.

 

[olgerm]

which is simply not true

In posts #3 and #6 Perok said, that one of reason to not let to post to old threads is that it is he does not like to ignore questions about his posts and that it is a nuisance to answer question about his old posts. He said it about himself, but I think he meant more generally and that it is an argument for not letting to post to old threads.

I don't necessarily want to respond to someone quoting a post of mine from five years ago.

I don't like to ignore someone if they ask me a question about a post of mine. It is a nuisance if the post is five years old.

An open old thread to which someone adds a new post is a discussion in which all but one participant have left the building.

Who would it bother if this 1 participant could post there? I suggested the idea to make these post not put the thread to top in lists of threads. This one participant might send link to the thread to his firends (who may not have PF account at all).

 

[DaveE]

Thanks for your input about how you think Greg should design and operate his web site. Unfortunately, most people seem to disagree with you. But, we get it, it's not a ridiculous idea. It would be impossible to satisfy everyone with a community this large. Sometimes you just have to fit in with a community even when you're sure it could be better.

 

[olgerm]

What are arguments for not allowing to post to old threads?

 

[Ibix]

See posts #2, #11, and #12. In the specific case you are talking about see also #5.

 

[berkeman]

What are arguments for not allowing to post to old threads?

One other reason that I don't think we've mentioned yet in this thread is that we have spent a lot of effort over the years tuning up the PF rules to make the forums work really well and keep a high signal-to-noise ratio. That means that threads that are 10 years old probably contain posts (or even OPs) that violate the current PF rules. That makes them hard to moderate if they are resurrected with necroposts, even if the new poster is well-meaning.

That's why it's usually best to just start a new thread and provide a link to the old thread. It gets current users involved, and makes it clear that the linked reference is to an old thread. The PF rules have been pretty stable for the past 5-ish years, IMO, but definitely went through a fair amount of fine-tuning for the 5-10 years prior to that.

 

[fresh_42]

If you want to add a new post to an old thread, then you will have read that entire thread I assume. You can therefore easily:

1. start a new thread with the topic and your new addon
2. link the old thread
3. summarize what already had been said
4. explain what is new in your post

 

[Frabjous]

Personally I find most (not all) zombie threads annoying.

You seem to recognize this with your “not at top of thread lists” suggestion.

A problem with the “not at top of thread lists” suggestion is that modern users will not know that anything is going on, so the zombie thread will not generate any discussion which defeats the purpose of posting. This also means that the moderators will have to pay more attention to these posts because normal users will not be reviewing them.

 

[fresh_42]

The major problem with old threads is, that you cannot ask anything anymore. Nobody is left to answer and nobody is interested in what you have to say. And even worse, you can say anything, even nonsense, and nobody is there to get it right. You could even turn the entire thread into a somehow silent platform of anything goes.

 

[Rive]

... another major problem with old threads is that they are themselves no longer relevant. At least, most of the time.
It requires some really special circumstances to have them a relevant continuation what would worth them reopening.

So having the rule and having the possibility of rare exception is just perfectly fine.

.. and I think the potential of this topic is already unearthed (several times), so maybe ... You know...

 

[fresh_42]

.. and I think the potential of this topic is already unearthed (several times), so maybe ... You know...

I do. And the poll with over 80% can be seen as confirmation, too. (Good we hadn't 100%.)

This thread is closed since all arguments are exchanged and the overall opinions are clear.