Maybe in AGv3 you can make a 'Locked Thread' section. This would be for all the locked threads. _____________________________________________________________________
Reasons Why This Would be Good-
1. It gets unwanted locked thread out of those sections into a 'Locked Thread' section where it will be and you'll only see threads that you can view on.
2. Deleting threads gets tiring for admins, so moderators can just lock the thread than move it ( not saying mods don't get tired of it, but admins have more work than to worry about spammy threads ).
3. You can find a good example of what a bad thread is and then show it to users who are doing the same thing and that may help out a little. _____________________________________________________________________
I hope you take this idea into consideration for updates of AGv3.
Maybe there just should not make a section like this.
Yes, I'd rather keep it like this. But for posts, if they get deleted then you see a message like they have on Kongregate. This post has been removed by a Moderator or Administrator So then you know which post got deleted and you don't have people asking many questions about it.
Well you could add a honorable or unhonorable delete, meaning if it was spam or something it would be unhonorable and the post counter would got down, but if it was an honorable delete (say an old topic that is just getting in the way and making a junk pile, but was still a good topic) it would not make the counter "go down". But the post would be gone.
But that might be unnessasary, but it would help cleer a lot of old topics and make the site run better. Ethier way a spam/locked threads bin just would work.
Well you could add a honorable or unhonorable delete, meaning if it was spam or something it would be unhonorable and the post counter would got down, but if it was an honorable delete (say an old topic that is just getting in the way and making a junk pile, but was still a good topic) it would not make the counter "go down". But the post would be gone.
I don't think the admins believe in "honorable" deletions as suggested in that quote.
Will we move locked threads to a different forum? Doubtful, users won't check there first and will ask the same questions over and over. We're looking at building a dynamic FAQ system where you can post a question and have it suggest threads/topics that might match your question. Kind of like what GetSatisfaction does.
Okay, so I read through this whole thread, sorry for my TL;DR comment earlier, but I was in a hurry.
I think that what would solve the problem is a way to merge threads. So if someone starts a duplicate thread, as mods/admins, we could just merge that thread with an existing thread, along with some way of denoting which other threads were merged. I think this would be an invaluable way of keeping threads in one spot without having to 'hide' locked threads. Of course, it would mean that moderators would have to know which threads were locked, etc., so there are obviously some logistics involved.
Ah some offeacail word! Lol. How are you going to merge topics? Like make one overwrite the other? Or blend the post (weird)? Or what? If you merge the topics then would the old posted count on the post counter?
But cormyn the real problem is old threads tht are locked that may or may not have newer versions. So what to do with all the locked threads that are piling up, I think it is best to leave them be. Question answer to me, but if you could delete them after such and such time and not make post counters go down( honorable deletion ) so the site would run faster and not have a load of junk stuck to it. If you realty wanted to read it you could just go to the Google archive and find it.
A merge would probably be a 'blend' where the new thread's messages would just be appended to the end of the old thread, and the new thread deleted.
Ultimately, it comes down to a question of how 'clean' do we want our forums. If we move loved topics out of a forum, yes, it looks cleaner, but users will create lots of duplicate threads because they won't see a locked thread of that topic already exists.
The other alternate is to only lock topics where a question was asked and then answered, but then that could get moved to our FAQ section to be found later. To accomplish this, though, we'd have to be more lenient on our 'necro' rule of reviving really old threads which are no longer relevant.
As far as a google archive, our intention is that we wouldn't want to rely on a third party to archive our data.
In my opinion, it should be split, Deleting thread or locking it. Deleting it would reduce the amount of unused threads. This would help in organization and stuff. Locking it would be for moderator stuff. If they want to state say something but not having it commented on.
This is a great idea. I'm sick and tired of seeing almost 200 pages on a single forum, with the back 30 or so being locked. I mean, cut down on the locked threads and ship 'em somewhere else, or just remove them!
We're looking at building a dynamic FAQ system where you can post a question and have it suggest threads/topics that might match your question. Kind of like what GetSatisfaction does.
So basically creating a sub-forum for what GetSatisfaction is used for? If so, then that sounds good.
Deleting it would reduce the amount of unused threads.
A lot of people will be getting pissed if a whole bunch of their posts suddenly get deleted along with the thread.
I'm sick and tired of seeing almost 200 pages on a single forum, with the back 30 or so being locked. I mean, cut down on the locked threads and ship 'em somewhere else, or just remove them!
Deleting them would be bad for the same reason stated above. The threads are locked for a reason. I find them good to be there for people to be able to read. Look at it like this: In the Support and Suggestions and AG3 sub-forum, if there is a thread with a question and/or idea, and it get locked, then people most likely know not to ask or recommend that idea.
I know of another website that has some sort of Threads of shame. It's threads that are locked. Though they are "threads of shame" they (unexpectedly) have had numerous visits, because they are unbelievably hilarious. (For example, a guy who warns that they will "sue" the forum)
I think, ultimately, we need a better way to deal with locked threads. Necro'ing was a big deal here at AG2 just because people were dragging up old posts just to gain points, and not really adding to the conversation.
With AG3, and the Reputation system, and lack of point awards for forum posts, I think our policy on necro'ing will need to be reworked, where we're not as strict about a necro'd thread, provided that the user is providing valuable conversation to the thread, instead of deleting their post and locking it. Or trying to auto-lock threads older than a certain age.
I'm sick and tired of seeing almost 200 pages on a single forum, with the back 30 or so being locked.
As an admin, I'm sick of having 30 duplicate threads. By removing threads from a forum because they're old/locked just means other users won't see a topic and think it's okay to post.
My idea was to have some piece of software analyze the post and try to determine, based on keywords, a list of other threads the user could contribute to instead of generating another new thread which might be a duplicate. Similar to what GetSatisfaction does when you try to post a message there.
