Re: Do we ever want to freeze threads?

[harangzsolt33]

This is a very bad idea! If you want to know one of the reasons why StackOverflow sucks it is because they shut down communication by freezing threads that appear to have a solution.

Just because you think you have a solution to a problem does not mean that years later someone won't come up with a much better or simpler solution. To deny people the ability to add to a thread years later is restricting the free exchange of ideas.

If your reasoning is that we should freeze old threads, because no one will see them, then why not simply delete the old threads? I mean, why stop there? If nobody is going to see them anyway? Right?

And what specific problem are we trying to solve with deleting or freezing old threads? Is PerlMonks running out of storage space? Are we afraid that somebody will revive an old thread? Why is that a bad thing? Why shouldn't someone come along and add an idea that no one has thought about?

[stevieb]

Since you've replied to a near 20 year old thread about thread freezing and no thread freezing has occurred, I think it's safe to say that threads aren't going to be freezing any time soon.

Note that if thread freezing had become a thing, you, nor I would be posting on this frozen thread ;)

If anything, if the date that the original post could be placed beside it when viewing threads, it would provide a mechanism to allow the reader to decide if they want to delve into an old post that someone recently updated.

[marto]

I suspect they only saw this because it was necrobumped a few hours previously.

[hippo]

If anything, if the date that the original post could be placed beside it when viewing threads, it would provide a mechanism to allow the reader to decide if they want to delve into an old post that someone recently updated.

When replying we already see this:

In reply to Re^2: Do we ever want to freeze threads? by stevieb
in thread Do we ever want to freeze threads? by talexb

I think just appending a loud (bold, standout colour) "which is more than n years old" to each of those where appropriate should be flag enough.

Readers (as opposed to commenters) probably don't overly care about the age of posts and if ever they do, the ages are easy to find as it is.

[harangzsolt33]

Oh wow. I didn't notice that. When I visit PerlMonks website, I usually just click on the "Recent Threads" link at the top and see what's new. This thread appeared at the very top which is why I assumed it was new.

[hippo]

I usually just click on the "Recent Threads" link

The title of the page it takes you to is the slightly more verbose "Recently Active Threads". This thread has been recently active but it is far from being new. It is a subtle but occasionally important distinction.

[talexb]

This is a very bad idea!

Sure, sure. My question (from almost twenty years ago) was not seriously about freezing threads, but perhaps flagging them to make it clear that the thread was old. And it's ironic that we're discussing this on a question I posted .. in 2004.

[harangzsolt33]

Yes, it is ironic! Lol I think, maybe if the date of the post was written with red if the thead is over a year old would help avoid this type of mistake. I really thought I'm responding to a current discussion. And it's not the first I have been tricked into responding. Lol Last time I started arguing with someone whose post was about 20 years old. That was hilarious.

[cavac]

What is even more astonishing: You talked on a 20 year old thread and the OP was still available and using their original account.

But that's PerlMonks. It's just a matter of time until paco returns to continue discussing his original question.