Definition of New Members

[Diver300]

We sometimes see old threads that haven't had any activity for years, and then someone replies. Looking at the site description of the OP on the posting, it often has "New Member". I assume that it because the OP has only posted a few times, but the description is a bit misleading when the OP has joined a decade ago, and maybe hasn't been seen for years either.

Would it be a good idea to change the description, or put in slightly different information?

 

[atferrari]

Or eliminate it altogheter?

 

[JimB]

Or just look at the date of the first post in the thread.

Then you can avoid replying to a long dead thread which has been re-animated by a mis guided first time poster or maybe a plain and simple spammer.

JimB

 

[KeepItSimpleStupid]

Maybe create a new category of "stale members", but there is no reason to over complicate it. "Spammer removed" to all thread members would be cool and re-dating the thread to the right last post would probably be the BEST way.

 

[Ian Rogers]

On AAC there is a warning displaying "Old thread" before you post I'll get Dave to look into it.

 

[schmitt trigger]

I believe Vilfredo Pareto would be proud to see that his 20/80 rule is still very valid in this and other web forums.

Although I think the ratio here could be higher: 10/90 or even perhaps 5/95.

Some %5 of all users make 95% of the posts.
If I were a moderator, with access to the forum's statistical data, I would run some statistics to determine the exact Pareto ratio.

 

[Ian Rogers]

If I were a moderator, with access to the forum's statistical data, I would run some statistics to determine the exact Pareto ratio.

Far like too much work.... Admin can do that.... Web pages is NOT my fortè

 

[OBW0549]

On AAC there is a warning displaying "Old thread" before you post...

...which is routinely ignored by clueless newbies.

My own preference would be to automatically lock any thread which has been inactive for more than 6 months or so, but that's just me. Not sure there's any way to do that, anyhow.

 

[narkeleptk]

...which is routinely ignored by clueless newbies.

My own preference would be to automatically lock any thread which has been inactive for more than 6 months or so, but that's just me. Not sure there's any way to do that, anyhow.

Then new users who come just because of that old thread they found on google are forced to make new threads about the same things and the old members then start yelling at them that's its a duplicate from another thread and to use the search function...

Absolutely nothing wrong with raising a thread from the dead if you have something to contribute for the future readers.

 

[Mickster]

Absolutely nothing wrong with raising a thread from the dead if you have something to contribute for the future readers.

That's true, but in a lot of cases, most-likely many more than we regular members get to witness, dead threads get necro'd without actually adding anything positive...
...an example from yesterday:

Help for PWM control with TL494 (KA7500) for 12/24V

Hello all! I need a project or schematics for PWM control for max 30A to 12/24V. Thanks for your cooperation.

www.electro-tech-online.com

 

[narkeleptk]

I see nothing wrong with that example. Its good advice for any future readers. If you don't want to contribute to it then don't and it will drop in to obscurity again until the next lurker picks it up on google only this time it has an a small answer to go with it. Just because the original poster is mia doesn't mean others who are interested in the topic are.

 

[Mickster]

The reply to the OP, roughly 9 years later, amounted to little more than RTFM....

 

[Ian Rogers]

I agree that some posts should stay, but the majority are exactly what Mick said... "Can you supply to me all you did because I'm too lazy" kinda post...

 

[gophert]

We should be able to easily prevent new members from posting to a thread more than 3-months old.