Why are old threads archived?

What are the reasons for archiving threads after a few months of inactivity? I use other forums that are much more active than this one, and they never archive anything--in fact, it's quite common to bump threads that have been inactive for years. Does it improve performance somehow? Just curious.

p.s. I'd prefer an answer from davidt himself, not the moderators. Thanks. :)
 
It just seems logical to me to archive something that has not been active. I don't know about other forums but this one has had some users that will go back and bump old threads just to annoy others.

What are the reasons for archiving threads after a few months of inactivity? I use other forums that are much more active than this one, and they never archive anything--in fact, it's quite common to bump threads that have been inactive for years. Does it improve performance somehow? Just curious.

p.s. I'd prefer an answer from davidt himself, not the moderators. Thanks. :)
 
It just seems logical to me to archive something that has not been active. I don't know about other forums but this one has had some users that will go back and bump old threads just to annoy others.

So there's no performance reason for doing so? It seems a bit cynical to think that old threads would get bumped just to annoy others. General Discussion and Other Music threads, at least, should be kept open indefinitely. It's not as if a thread about The Beatles or whatnot could ever go out of style.
 
No, this was not done for performance issues. I don't see what you mean by 'cynical to think' it would happen as it has already happened.

If you want a specific thread moved out you can request it but otherwise if it's a common problem then I'll make adjustments. Generally if a thread hasn't been replied to in 3 months I think it's safe to archive.

So there's no performance reason for doing so? It seems a bit cynical to think that old threads would get bumped just to annoy others. General Discussion and Other Music threads, at least, should be kept open indefinitely. It's not as if a thread about The Beatles or whatnot could ever go out of style.
 
What are the reasons for archiving threads after a few months of inactivity? I use other forums that are much more active than this one, and they never archive anything--in fact, it's quite common to bump threads that have been inactive for years. Does it improve performance somehow? Just curious.

p.s. I'd prefer an answer from davidt himself, not the moderators. Thanks. :)

So there's no performance reason for doing so? It seems a bit cynical to think that old threads would get bumped just to annoy others. General Discussion and Other Music threads, at least, should be kept open indefinitely. It's not as if a thread about The Beatles or whatnot could ever go out of style.

in all seriousness, though, imagine if somebody started a new thread and it got merged with a thread on a related subject that'd been inactive for several years! it might only serve to open up a new front in The Struggle and the consequences for everyone could be quite profound.

i think this idea needs to be approached cautiously.
 
in all seriousness, though, imagine if somebody started a new thread and it got merged with a thread on a related subject that'd been inactive for several years! it might only serve to open up a new front in The Struggle and the consequences for everyone could be quite profound.

i think this idea needs to be approached cautiously.
miserable372a.jpg

The Struggle!
 
What are the reasons for archiving threads after a few months of inactivity? I use other forums that are much more active than this one, and they never archive anything--in fact, it's quite common to bump threads that have been inactive for years. Does it improve performance somehow? Just curious.

p.s. I'd prefer an answer from davidt himself, not the moderators. Thanks. :)

Locking and archiving is an easy way to censor. Simple really.
 
How is archiving a thread that hasn't been replied to in three months censorship? It's part of site maintenance, nothing to do with censorship.

You may calling posting on a difficult thread 'bumping to annoy others' and therefore apply your logic to end the debate. That by defintion is censorship. Fact.

'Difficult' threads are moved, deleted, locked or archived.

These pesky users wanting to post on threads that annoy you. Tut-tut!
 
You may calling posting on a difficult thread 'bumping to annoy others' and therefore apply your logic to end the debate. That by defintion is censorship. Fact.

'Difficult' threads are moved, deleted, locked or archived.

These pesky users wanting to post on threads that annoy you. Tut-tut!

You need to work on what you perceive as a 'fact'. That is not censorship. Censorship would be you posting and someone removing that post.
 
You may calling posting on a difficult thread 'bumping to annoy others' and therefore apply your logic to end the debate. That by defintion is censorship. Fact.

'Difficult' threads are moved, deleted, locked or archived.

These pesky users wanting to post on threads that annoy you. Tut-tut!

facepalmmozsolo.png
 
You may calling posting on a difficult thread 'bumping to annoy others' and therefore apply your logic to end the debate. That by definition is censorship. Fact.

'Difficult' threads are moved, deleted, locked or archived.

These pesky users wanting to post on threads that annoy you. Tut-tut!

Hugh,

It is clear that you are incredibly unhappy with a lot of things here. Would you consider running a Morrissey forum for 6 months to see what it is really like?

I'm just a moderator and it can be quite a bit to deal with.

David is dealing with much more than just some free software at a free web forum site. He has to deal with a hosting company, a domain, advertising in order to break even, email requests/complains, the submission of news entries on the main page, the comments section on the main page and probably another 50 things I didn't even think of.

I wonder if you would be willing to set up just a forums. Run it your own way and do so for 6 months and then see how you feel about people who don't like the way you are running it.

If you let everyone run wild people will complain that you need to tighten the rules. If you tighten the rules people will complain that you Hitler.

There will never be a set of rules that makes everyone happy.

You don't like some of the rules here. Understandable. You know what? I don't like some of the rules here either. I don't like all the rules about any part of life. I've even came to the conclusion that the answer to that is to make the rules but it's actually harder to be the one that makes the rules than it is to be the one who has to live with them.

So think about running a Moz forum for 6 months. It's at best 5% of the work it takes to run this site. I will even support your site. I will put the url in my sig file here and in my personal email account. I will do anything I can to give your site a lot of traffic including being a regular contributor.

-Jimmy
 
You need to work on what you perceive as a 'fact'. That is not censorship. Censorship would be you posting and someone removing that post.

You need a dictionary.

Censorship in its broadest sense refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone. Your excuse offered of stopping old threads being bumped that annoy you IS censorship. It is a FACT that the suppression of communication is censorship. You sarcastically asked if I can read, yet you make up your own definitions to the English language.

A mod recently posted that no posts are ever removed. I had to email them, as the thread had been locked, to highlight that I myself have had posts removed/censored. No reply.

The banning or sending to the naughty step is censorship too.


Hugh,

It is clear that you are incredibly unhappy with a lot of things here. Would you consider running a Morrissey forum for 6 months to see what it is really like?

I'm just a moderator and it can be quite a bit to deal with.

David is dealing with much more than just some free software at a free web forum site. He has to deal with a hosting company, a domain, advertising in order to break even, email requests/complains, the submission of news entries on the main page, the comments section on the main page and probably another 50 things I didn't even think of.

I wonder if you would be willing to set up just a forums. Run it your own way and do so for 6 months and then see how you feel about people who don't like the way you are running it.

If you let everyone run wild people will complain that you need to tighten the rules. If you tighten the rules people will complain that you Hitler.

There will never be a set of rules that makes everyone happy.

You don't like some of the rules here. Understandable. You know what? I don't like some of the rules here either. I don't like all the rules about any part of life. I've even came to the conclusion that the answer to that is to make the rules but it's actually harder to be the one that makes the rules than it is to be the one who has to live with them.

So think about running a Moz forum for 6 months. It's at best 5% of the work it takes to run this site. I will even support your site. I will put the url in my sig file here and in my personal email account. I will do anything I can to give your site a lot of traffic including being a regular contributor.

-Jimmy

All I ask is for equality, fairness and a bit of manners. Oh and honesty would be nice too.

Science may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all - the apathy of human beings. Helen Keller (1880 - 1968)

Somewhere between apathy and anarchy lies the thinking human being. Rod Serling (1924 - 1975)

Every great sin ought to rouse a great anger. Mob law is better than no law at all. A community which rises in its wrath to punish with misdirected anger a great wrong is in a healthier moral condition than a community which looks upon its perpetration with apathy and unconcern. Lyman Abbott (1835 - 1922)
 
You need a dictionary.

Censorship in its broadest sense refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone. Your excuse offered of stopping old threads being bumped that annoy you IS censorship. It is a FACT that the suppression of communication is censorship. You sarcastically asked if I can read, yet you make up your own definitions to the English language.

If you want to be that broad then any sort of site maintenance is 'censorship'. You are not prevented from posting / creating a new thread. No one else seems to be having any issues with this policy.
 
You need a dictionary.

All I ask is for equality, fairness and a bit of manners. Oh and honesty would be nice too.

Every great sin ought to rouse a great anger. Mob law is better than no law at all. A community which rises in its wrath to punish with misdirected anger a great wrong is in a healthier moral condition than a community which looks upon its perpetration with apathy and unconcern. Lyman Abbott (1835 - 1922)

I have been completely honest with you.

I am guessing by your lack of a response you are not willing to try running a forum to get some insight on how much work it is. It really is a lot of work, I don't blame you one bit.

As far as your Lyman Abbot quote goes, "Mob law is better than no law" is one that I don't really see the analogy. There definitely is "law" here. I just wish I could figure out if you are upset with the laws themselves or the lawmaker.

I'm trying to work with you here but one problem is that it is clear there is an impasse. You want things to change. David has no interest in changing them. Your posts are stating WHY David is setting the policies the way he is but we have no real idea why. Why he is making them isn't really relevant if you truly want them changed.

Having Kewpie not be a moderator is not on the table at this time so we are going to have to just agree to disagree.

What is open for discussion perhaps is the archiving of old posts.

Taking all personal elements out of the discussion, if you really think there is a value to be gained by not using archives, you should create a new thread with a poll. Ask if people want archives or not. If there is an overwhelming response to free up the archives it is possible that you will see them become available again.

While this is not a democracy, user feedback can in fact lead to changes that users want.
 
Last edited:
I have been completely honest with you.

I am guessing by your lack of a response you are not willing to try running a forum to get some insight on how much work it is. It really is a lot of work, I don't blame you one bit.

As far as your Lyman Abbot quote goes, "Mob law is better than no law" is one that I don't really see the analogy. There definitely is "law" here. I just wish I could figure out if you are upset with the laws themselves or the lawmaker.

I'm trying to work with you here but one problem is that it is clear there is an impasse. You want things to change. David has no interest in changing them. Your posts are stating WHY David is setting the policies the way he is but we have no real idea why. Why he is making them isn't really relevant if you truly want them changed.

Having Kewpie not be a moderator is not on the table at this time so we are going to have to just agree to disagree.

What is open for discussion perhaps is the archiving of old posts.

Taking all personal elements out of the discussion, if you really think there is a value to be gained by not using archives, you should create a new thread with a poll. Ask if people want archives or not. If there is an overwhelming response to free up the archives it is possible that you will see them become available again.

While this is not a democracy, user feedback can in fact lead to changes that users want.

I agree that YOU have been completely honest with me.

I don't like the way GB runs the UK. It's easy for people to then say to me that I should stand for election. It isn't the point, nor is it a sensible reply.

I'm upset at the unequal application of the laws.

I've already said I realise that the site is run exactly as David likes it and that is his choice. My choices are limited but they will never include not expressing myself.

David has stated on this thread, which was created by another user, that I am the only person who has an issue with this policy. If that is right, then David's doing nothing policy would seem to be the correct.

I refuse to be apathetic, even if the area of concern is outside my circle of influence.
 
You may calling posting on a difficult thread 'bumping to annoy others' and therefore apply your logic to end the debate. That by defintion is censorship. Fact.

'Difficult' threads are moved, deleted, locked or archived.

These pesky users wanting to post on threads that annoy you. Tut-tut!

your contribution is threatening to the status quo

tiananmen-square-hero.jpg
 
You need a dictionary.

Censorship in its broadest sense refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone. Your excuse offered of stopping old threads being bumped that annoy you IS censorship. It is a FACT that the suppression of communication is censorship. You sarcastically asked if I can read, yet you make up your own definitions to the English language.

A mod recently posted that no posts are ever removed. I had to email them, as the thread had been locked, to highlight that I myself have had posts removed/censored. No reply.

The banning or sending to the naughty step is censorship too.




All I ask is for equality, fairness and a bit of manners. Oh and honesty would be nice too.

Science may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all - the apathy of human beings. Helen Keller (1880 - 1968)

Somewhere between apathy and anarchy lies the thinking human being. Rod Serling (1924 - 1975)

Every great sin ought to rouse a great anger. Mob law is better than no law at all. A community which rises in its wrath to punish with misdirected anger a great wrong is in a healthier moral condition than a community which looks upon its perpetration with apathy and unconcern. Lyman Abbott (1835 - 1922)

I agree that YOU have been completely honest with me.

I don't like the way GB runs the UK. It's easy for people to then say to me that I should stand for election. It isn't the point, nor is it a sensible reply.

I'm upset at the unequal application of the laws.

I've already said I realise that the site is run exactly as David likes it and that is his choice. My choices are limited but they will never include not expressing myself.

David has stated on this thread, which was created by another user, that I am the only person who has an issue with this policy. If that is right, then David's doing nothing policy would seem to be the correct.

I refuse to be apathetic, even if the area of concern is outside my circle of influence.

when you read your posts back, is it like when peter stringfellow brushes his hair and looks in the mirror and thinks to himself, "yeah!"?

peter_stringfellow_2.jpg
 
3 months is approximate. Also, not all forums were archived until recently.
 
Back
Top Bottom