I've often noticed that mods will lock threads if someone posts a response a year or two after the original post. Why is this? I can understand the locking of time-sensitive threads, ("Should I come out?" "What should I do?" Etc.) but I have seen several threads that were revived with useful information. Isn't the purpose of an online forum to promote discussion? Just to be clear, I'm not disputing the moderators' policies, or anything of that sort. I'm just trying to gain a better understanding of how things works.
We're fine with revived threads if they're generic in nature. We lock resurrected threads if they deal with a specific ECer dealing with a specific topic, even if that topic might apply to others. The reason we do that is that people tend to then read only the first post, and start offering specific advice and support, and asking specific questions, to a person who nearly always is no longer in that position (and, quite often, is no longer on EC). At that point, the thread ceases to be helpful, and simply becomes cluttered with a lot of background noise. Our suggestion to posters is to start a new thread, and (if they think it'd be worthwhile) to provide a link in that thread to the old one. "I was reading this thread (link) and it got me thinking about..." Lex
Lex: Just curious, might it be easier if threads auto-locked after a timeframe of inactivity? I know I've necroposted without realizing I was posting in a thread over a year old around the time of the DOMA ruling from SCOTUS, because it showed up in the similar threads section at the bottom, and I overlooked the date....
Sometimes, though, threads which are bumped are not time-sensitive (e.g. "Where does your username come from?", which is a year old), and sometimes there's good new information that fits best in the old thread, like an update on a bad situation at home. Personally, I think that leaving threads unlocked unless they are bumped is easier and more welcoming than locking them all unless someone asks to post.
But that would then throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some old threads really are "timeless" or generic like Lex said, and it would be hard to distinguish that unless someone evaluated them by hand. Therefore, since it doesn't seem like a lot of old threads get resurrected in the first place, it's better to let moderators deal with the few that do get new posts rather than set an arbitrary timeline.
