Anti Necro Posting

You realize you just said you want the practice of locking threads to change, right?

Anyway, the vast majority of necro’d threads aren’t a pointless waste of time. See? I can say baseless things too.

Right, it has no responses because people are forced to create new threads instead of replying in current ones. So what happens? Many, many singular threads all talking about the same thing.

and current, conslidated information is best.

most, huh? Looking on the front page right now, most threads are under 20 replies. Very few have hundreds. Even fewer have thousands, and I couldn’t find a single post that had tens of thousands while scrolling for quite a while. Exaggeration doesn’t help your point, only hurts it.

Caring about necros is like the ultimate internet e-police act.

Imagine if it was real life “hey man remember we were talking 6 months ago about th…UM EXCUSE ME THIS IS NO LONGER CURRENT I AM REPORTING YOU TO THE POLICE”.


But some necros are funny.

I, uh yeah? That’s kind of the whole point of this thread. Currently threads don’t autolock after any period of inactivity. That’s what some of us want to be changed.

Yeah, it’s pretty pathetic sometimes. Especially when the information is still relevant.

not sure where you’re looking… but most threads certainly aren’t under 20 replies… unless they’ve been created in the last couple of hours.

…and this forum doesn’t have pages.

over 10k:

over 17k:

how was there any exaggeration?
there are multiple megathreads currently active.

1 Like

The front “page,” aka the threads that are at the top of the forums that everyone looks at. You know, the place where all the new threads you’re advocating get created will go. And yes, most are between 1 and 20 replies. I’d say 95% of them are under 100 replies, even scrolling for quite a while.

A couple threads is not “most,” lol.

Certainly I don’t have to explain to you what the word “most” means, right??

I would argue that the ones below 20 are the ones most needed to be auto-locked after 30+ days of activity. They weren’t popular to begin with and then their discussion completely fell apart. So make a new thread and link to the old thread if you absolutely must.

don’t try to take what i said out of context.

what i said was

perhaps you don’t understand the wording, that’s ok.
i didn’t say “most threads have tens of thousands of posts”, as you’re attempting to imply.

sure… ignore the incremental representation of my statement, if it suits your agenda. :roll_eyes:

Yeah it’s really annoying, those generic titles sounds like what you’re looking for but it isn’t what you’re looking for because not everyone wants to achieve the exact same result. And the people who marked it as duplicate isn’t providing the correct link to your question as well, and the bunny race could go on forever.

And when you post a new topic asking about 1+1, people would mark it as duplicate with another topic asking about 3-1, which is a totally different thing because that’s not how programming works.

You magnificent bugger

Most aren’t hundreds, or thousands, or tens of thousands. So, no matter which incremental representation you want, you’re still wrong. But ok.

the threads which have been created since your last visit?
based on your version of “front page”, every visitor sees something different.

because “most” of the threads on your “front page”, are freshly created.

How much scrolling, if any, are you using to define the “front page”?

Start scrolling. You don’t see different things than I do, it’s based on the latest replies.

As I said, I kept scrolling. Which you are choosing to ignore, I guess, since it suits your agenda.

Sure, but if you post something about how to add, and you get one answer that says 1+1 but another person found a more efficient way to get 2 by doing 3-1 instead, but that gets deleted because the post is over X days old, that’s idiotic.

The “front page” is infinite then.

it’s based on the replies since your last visit.
unless we both visited at exactly the same time, what we see is different according to your “front page” theory.

how far back?
i’ve got 15 or more threads with over 100 replies in the last couple of hours… but somehow you seem to be not seeing those?

1 Like

Why do you force me to hand-hold you? Can you not infer context? Front-page of the forum is a common phrase. You can use your brain to think “huh, probably the threads he sees when he comes to the page and scrolls a bit.”

Instead, you want to be technical for no other reason than to say “LOL GOTCHA!”

No it’s not… It’s based on the latest replies period. Based on time.

I scrolled to see 2 days. But it doesn’t matter.

15 threads out of how many? Because again, you’re talking about a majority. 15 threads out of 100 threads is not a majority. I’m certainly not claiming there are no threads that have a lot of replies. Just not “most,” as you claim. Most don’t have many replies at all. It doesn’t matter how far you scroll. “Most” threads die under 50 replies.

I just want to make sure we’re all on the same page here since “front page” is a vague term.

We don’t have a “front page” anymore since they implemented infinite scrolling.

Define “scrolls a bit” with some sort of objective definition.

1 Like

Yeah but sometimes you need that 1+1 because your database only have 1 and 1, and you can’t restructure your database fields.

What I meant is, if the generic “how to get 2” topic got locked and you have to create a new topic regarding your very specific question (1+1), then the whole forum would be filled with a bunch of “how to get 2” topics which isn’t really helpful because people would need to read all of those topic one by one to find the answer they’re looking for.