Forum Index
»
Private & Independent Schools
locking old threads?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
How would posters here feel about having inactive threads locked after a certain amount of time?
I'm getting tired of the endless return of the undead and I wondered if others were as well. |
Anonymous
| The best method is to ignore threads you don't like. |
Anonymous
| I actually appreciate it when a poster goes to the trouble of digging out an old thread. This saves us from repeating something we already posted a few months ago. Then we can just update info (the new head at school XXX seems to be working out well) without having to go into the history of school XXX.... |
Anonymous
| 11:48 again. Although yeah, go ahead and lock that aging Sidwell football thread. Maybe we should lock stupid threads, not necessarily old ones. I don't even have a kid there. |
Anonymous
| Everyone has a different definition of "stupid" or "useful" threads (although I bet there are some that would be close to unanimous). I say keep it all because when I was new here those old ones were so useful - even if I didn't revive them. |
Anonymous
Usually you are still able to read a locked post. You just can't post responses to it anymore. |
Anonymous
| I agree with the OP. So many of the comments about schools can be irrelevant after a few months. There have been times when I've gotten half way through a thread and realized it was from 2008. Very frustrating since schools can make MAJOR changes in 3 years. |
Anonymous
|
OP here -- I do ignore the old threads. That said, when the front page is cluttered with them (lax culture, Sidwell football), I tend to ignore the board as a whole because it appears to be in let's-stir-that-pot-again mode.
Other BBs I know lock old threads at a certain point and that keeps them searchable/readable/linkable but means that they naturally fall off the front page, never to return. |
Anonymous
|
Locking it, you can still read it.
Removing it, you can still find it cached on Google. I vote NO. |
Anonymous
|
Let's be honest. The people who really want certain threads locked are those who have/had children attend a school mentioned in a particular thread and don't want the issues brought up publicly again.
Honestly, clamoring for these threads to be removed and/or locked is just drawing more attention to the issue. Like any thread here, just ignore what you don't want to read. Asking for a thread to be deleted is like calling for a book you don't care for to be burned. |
Anonymous
|
Not true -- I'm the OP and my kid doesn't go to Sidwell or Landon or Beauvoir or St Albans or any of the perennial faves. And I didn't ask for any thread to be deleted. I suggested that it might be an improvement if the day's headlines, so to speak, had to change occasionally and that we might be better served by an approach which doesn't give a single poster the power to bring the same old shit to the fore time and time again.
YMMV -- which is why I posed the question rather than lobbied Jeff for the change. |
Anonymous
| bump |
Anonymous
| 18:26, your irony is delicious. Brava! |
Anonymous
| It sounds uber-controlling to me to want to lock old threads. There is no cost to visit DCUM ... if you don't want to read it fine...your personal choice. Don't force your decision on others. |
Anonymous
|
Locking doesn't prohibit anyone from reading a thread. It prohibits them from adding posts to it and bumping it to the top.
It doesn't prohibit them from posting any statement or cross-referencing any previous discussion -- it just requires them to start a new thread to do so. Currently, any individual can force her preference re what should be on the front page upon the rest of us simply by adding "bump" at the end of any pre-existing thread. So it's not to each her own vs. centralized control. It's whether the policy should be new stuff at the top (and old stuff has an expiration date) or anyone can bump anything back to the top at any time. |