"Old thread" 365-day warning - can it be increased?

RussR

En-Route
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
4,080
Location
Oklahoma City, OK
Display Name

Display name:
Russ
On one of our recent zombie threads, I posted a screenshot of the warning we get if we are considering resurrecting one. The thread I picked for the screenshot was about 19 years old, yet the warning just said the thread was 365 days old (doesn't even say "more than").

I'm wondering if this is a possible cause of "some" of our zombie threads. Maybe a year doesn't really seem too old for an aviation discussion.

Is it possible to have the text be dynamic, meaning if the thread (like my sample here) is 19 years old, have it say "There have been no replies for 19 years"? Maybe this would cause the poster to think a little harder about clicking the box?

1707488043251.png
 
Thanks for catching this. I’m already thinking about something more meaningful to people than a number. “There have been no replies since we lost Johnny Carson.” If we have the poster’s age, we can even say “There have been no replies since you lost your first tooth.”
 
Thanks for catching this. I’m already thinking about something more meaningful to people than a number. “There have been no replies since we lost Johnny Carson.” If we have the poster’s age, we can even say “There have been no replies since you lost your first tooth.”
Okay that's funny!

Although I'm willing to bet that most people under age 40 have never even heard of Johnny Carson.
 
I've wondered about this..... the warning says "...content MAY no longer be relevant...)

but
if someone found the thread, and found it interesting enough to post a comment on it... they certainly thought it was relevant. So I think what's the harm of breathing life back into it?

I could certainly see value in somehow flagging the message for all to see...such as color coding the message background to anyone reading the newly posted comment and anything trailing it as sort of a red flag (because the pop-up you refer to only shows to the person reviving it that obviously thought it was relevant....but it doesn't show to the folks reading that post or any future ones....
but no doubt color coding logic or anything like that is likely beyond the capability of the forum software....

An alternative thought... I wonder if there's a way to suggest or force the new post to be in a NEW thread, but to "quote" the old message that they are responding to...so that folks can go back to the old thread to get context. Basically, lock a thread at 1 year but allow quoting from it to force a link in the new thread to the old thread
 
I've wondered about this..... the warning says "...content MAY no longer be relevant...)

but
if someone found the thread, and found it interesting enough to post a comment on it... they certainly thought it was relevant. So I think what's the harm of breathing life back into it?

I could certainly see value in somehow flagging the message for all to see...such as color coding the message background to anyone reading the newly posted comment and anything trailing it as sort of a red flag (because the pop-up you refer to only shows to the person reviving it that obviously thought it was relevant....but it doesn't show to the folks reading that post or any future ones....
but no doubt color coding logic or anything like that is likely beyond the capability of the forum software....

An alternative thought... I wonder if there's a way to suggest or force the new post to be in a NEW thread, but to "quote" the old message that they are responding to...so that folks can go back to the old thread to get context. Basically, lock a thread at 1 year but allow quoting from it to force a link in the new thread to the old thread
The thread that most recently made @RussR think about this is a good example. The OP was on March 2, 2013. He asked if it's legal to file an IFR flight plan without an instrument rating. Over the following 5 weeks, people posted about the topic. The Affordable Care Act was being phased in during that time. Nelson Mandela and Elizabeth II each had brief hospital stays while the thread was active. It lay dormant since July 2014, when a federal judge approved a settlement between the NFL and 4,500 former players over concussions and Lebron James announced he would go back to play for Cleveland.

Then, almost 10 years later, a new user made his first post, suggesting that the OP, who hasn't been on the forum for over 10 years, should just get VFR flight following for practice approaches.

While the content of the thread may still have been relevant, the discussion itself probably isn't and neither the members who had had that discussion during the last papal conclave nor anyone else really needed the suggestion to get VFR flight following if you want have an experience "kind of" like filing an IFR flight plan.

In any event, 19 years is more than 365 days and the MC will take a look at correcting that part of the problem. Everyone else, please have active and relevant discussions so newbies can find those instead of necroposting. :)
 
And to once again answer the original question, you do not have to have an instrument rating to file, but you need an instrument rating to accept an IFR clearance.
 
Resurrecting an old thread about IFR requirements isn't as bad as posting in a 10 year old for sale thread, "Hi, is XXX still available?"
 
Thanks for catching this. I’m already thinking about something more meaningful to people than a number. “There have been no replies since we lost Johnny Carson.” If we have the poster’s age, we can even say “There have been no replies since you lost your first tooth.”
How about making the font size proportional to the age of the thread? One checkbox per year? CAPTCHA?
 
1707689997380.png
My brother and I were wondering if anyone has tried those new-fangled "synthetic" rubber belts. Will they be able to handle 12 horse-power without breaking?
--W
 

Attachments

  • 1707690001848.png
    1707690001848.png
    7.7 MB · Views: 2
Resurrecting an old thread about IFR requirements isn't as bad as posting in a 10 year old for sale thread, "Hi, is XXX still available?"
Hey, you can't blame those people. The best prices are in the prior decade's listings. Of course, once resurrected, the thread looks fresh so more people dogpile onto it. And who wouldn't want to be the tenth willing buyer in line for a $15,000 Cessna 172 with fresh engine, paint, and interior?
 
So...the premise of the original post is that someone may post in a X year old discussion because they read all the words of the warning, but didn't read the date of the last posted message?

When I worked with the help desk team of an organization that mostly consisted of professionals with advanced degrees, the standing joke was that if we sent a live grenade to people with a sign that said "do not pull pin", fully half the people would pull the pin. It is impossible to write directions or warnings that most people will follow, in my view.
 
When I worked with the help desk team of an organization that mostly consisted of professionals with advanced degrees, the standing joke was that if we sent a live grenade to people with a sign that said "do not pull pin", fully half the people would pull the pin.
I'd pull it. How else are you supposed to use a grenade for its intended purpose? Why would you send me a live grenade unless you intended for me to use it?
 
So...the premise of the original post is that someone may post in a X year old discussion because they read all the words of the warning, but didn't read the date of the last posted message?

When I worked with the help desk team of an organization that mostly consisted of professionals with advanced degrees, the standing joke was that if we sent a live grenade to people with a sign that said "do not pull pin", fully half the people would pull the pin. It is impossible to write directions or warnings that most people will follow, in my view.
That "fully half" number... Was it obtained before, or after, distributing live hand grenades...
 
Back
Top