Dismiss Notice
Hey Guest, make sure to follow us on Twitter! Say hi and we'll be sure to follow back!

Auto-lock on old threads...?

Discussion in 'Feedback & Help' started by Ashley_Price, Jan 11, 2017.

  1. Ashley_Price

    Ashley_Price UKBF Legend Full Member - Verified Business

    Posts: 6,531 Likes: 1,162
    When I joined this (and also other online forums) we're usually told don't keep starting new threads on the same topic, see if there was one done previously.

    However, having just seen a new member be told by a moderator not to add to a thread that's over 3 months old (admittedly, this particular one was 7 years old), it made me wonder as this is the rule, is there not a way to auto-lock old threads? That way it would stop this happening.
     
    Posted: Jan 11, 2017 By: Ashley_Price Member since: Feb 9, 2008
    #1
  2. Kat Haylock

    Kat Haylock Community Editor Staff Member

    Posts: 259 Likes: 116
    Hi Ashley,

    I agree - we're planning on testing out the auto-lock mentioned in this thread. However, the site's due a software update any time now, so we're just waiting to find out what'll be included in that before we make bespoke changes :)

    Let me know if you have any more questions!
     
    Posted: Jan 12, 2017 By: Kat Haylock Member since: Jul 11, 2016
    #2
  3. Employment Law Clinic

    Employment Law Clinic UKBF Ace Full Member - Verified Business

    Posts: 2,985 Likes: 1,411
    Personally, I despise the idea of locking old threads. Forum etiquette was once universally as you described, Ashley



    and while I still can’t see where in the rules this policy has been stated, I equally can’t perceive how it helps the forum. It’s not as if spammers won’t spam on UKBF simply because they can’t reopen old threads, but I started a thread some months ago; employment law not being quick, an update wouldn’t be available within three months, and a new thread makes no sense – so a thread is left without an outcome. I think that’s dumb, but hey, the powers that be deem this appropriate, so be it.



    Karl Limpert
     
    Posted: Jan 12, 2017 By: Employment Law Clinic Member since: Aug 10, 2009
    #3
  4. Ashley_Price

    Ashley_Price UKBF Legend Full Member - Verified Business

    Posts: 6,531 Likes: 1,162
    Posted: Jan 12, 2017 By: Ashley_Price Member since: Feb 9, 2008
    #4
  5. Employment Law Clinic

    Employment Law Clinic UKBF Ace Full Member - Verified Business

    Posts: 2,985 Likes: 1,411

    Hi Ashley,

    I can agree in some cases it would be appropriate to recommend starting a new thread instead, but the (unwritten) policy is, to my mind, a blunt, ineffective tool, just something more to do more harm than good to UKBF. Forcing it with an auto-lock will just make things worse, encourage fewer posters than even engage now.


    Karl Limpert
     
    Posted: Jan 12, 2017 By: Employment Law Clinic Member since: Aug 10, 2009
    #5
  6. Ian J

    Ian J Factoring Specialist Full Member - Verified Business

    Posts: 3,852 Likes: 1,063
    It's my guess that 99.5% of forum members couldn't care less whether threads are locked after a period of inactivity or not
     
    Posted: Jan 12, 2017 By: Ian J Member since: Nov 6, 2004
    #6
  7. Employment Law Clinic

    Employment Law Clinic UKBF Ace Full Member - Verified Business

    Posts: 2,985 Likes: 1,411
    Thanks for your guess, Ian, although I'm not sure what benefit it serves. If new members don't immediately realise that the normal etiquette goes against the rules on UKBF, and they always have to open a new thread rather than contribute to a current thread (the more customary practice, as Ashley observed), getting told to post elsewhere, how does that help the forum attract new members?

    It would be my estimate that 99.5% of ex-forum members that used to add value to these boards have been banned or stopped posting, but with obscure or unwritten rules applied, that only makes such events more likely, and more so if new members are told after they've posted that the unwritten rules are that their practices are not acceptable here (but that's just a guess too, as I have no real idea, and it's simply my view that this unwritten rule is unnecessary, and its objectives could be handled better).


    Karl Limpert
     
    Posted: Jan 12, 2017 By: Employment Law Clinic Member since: Aug 10, 2009
    #7
  8. Scalloway

    Scalloway UKBF Legend Free Member

    Posts: 11,288 Likes: 2,484
    Most posts on here are from someone with a specific query that is discussed and hopefully sorted. It seem sensible for somebody who comes along later with a roughly similar query to start a new thread as it is really a new topic.
     
    Posted: Jan 12, 2017 By: Scalloway Member since: Jun 6, 2010
    #8
  9. Employment Law Clinic

    Employment Law Clinic UKBF Ace Full Member - Verified Business

    Posts: 2,985 Likes: 1,411


    @Scalloway. I can’t disagree with your point at all. But the forum is usually capable of moderating these posts for itself – if something is roughly similar, but different, someone will observe that a new post isn’t the same, and suggest a new thread be started.


    “Most” isn’t all though, and it’s not unknown that someone has the same issue, at a later date. Why couldn’t it be helpful or relevant to continue a previous thread, ensure the details therein are still relevant?


    I don’t see a lot of disagreement among the accountants, but I expect is has to happen on occasion –disputes with HMRC go to tribunals or the like.


    Among the employment lawyers, I think threads like http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/threads/being-an-employer-sucks.189323/ were justifiably updated after the event, even when three months elapsed, There was a difference of opinion in legal circles, and surely it helps for anyone to know how things concluded, how the tribunals adjudicated on the difference of opinion (although this will never happen within three months).


    If the forum’s threads are to be deemed to contain any useful advice, surely they should be able to be updated with developments, should there be any.


    But if 99.5% of members don’t think that’s a necessary addition (a guess - not mine), how should this policy best be applied? Perhaps it could apply to members that haven't been active for three months too?!




    Karl Limpert
     
    Posted: Jan 12, 2017 By: Employment Law Clinic Member since: Aug 10, 2009
    #9