Are threads now closed automatically if they receive no replies within 1 year?

[raspabalsa]

Hello all

I was running some searches of not-so-old threads, and noticed that all threads that haven't received a reply within 1 year are now closed. Is this a new forum policy, possibly to avoid spamming and trolling? I know this was not done a while back, but I didn't notice this new feature until today.

I think this policy could be both an advantage and a disadvantage. Probably there are threads a year old that merit being revived (i.e.: unsolved problems, technotalk, etc). If this was the case, could it be possible to reopen a thread? I suppose this would mean contacting a Moderator describing the reason for the request.

Thanks for any insight and observations.

EDIT: I just noticed the thread title is mis-leading. Could a mod please modify it to: "Are threads now closed automatically if they receive no replies within 1 year"? Or something to that effect. Thanks

[headcronie]

Yes, threads close themselves after a year. Yes, bug a mod if you want one re-opened. Yes, I'll modify the title.

[Hook]

Rather than bug a mod to reopen, start a new thread and link to the old.

[raspabalsa]

Thanks, hc It's just that I've always associated the action of closing a thread to be a result of posters misbehaving or otherwise breaking forum rules. When I ran my search earlier I was very surprised to see so many threads closed with no immediately apparent reason.

Hook, thanks for your suggestion. I'll keep it in mind. However, it's good to know I can also bug a mod if the discussion is best continued in the original thread.

[Dick Tracy]

Believe this decision was the result of numerous spammers posting to stale threads.

[AKAJohnDoe]

That and the velocity of technology being what it is one year in human time is like seven years in tech time.

[raspabalsa]

Thanks for the added info, DT, and AKA. Makes sense as a spam-reducing measure.

[Adama D. Brown]

DT's exactly right. We did this awhile back--I think mid-year or so--because of an influx of spam targeting existing threads, which made it hard to spot.

[Konrad Pierce]

Oooh, raspa ... nice av! One of those Starcraft dark half-dead psy-things (adorned with a bit of bright holiday cheer)?

I don't understand why old threads would be more spammy than newer ones. Are the spammers apparently just too lazy (or untechnical) to update their links? I mean, were I a spammer, I imagine that I would want to litter in places where there's some traffic. Who's gonna click on a stale thread about some obscure problem with a 1993 PDA or somesuch? Much better to spam in (for example) an iPhone-jailbreaking thread, I would think.

Rather than bug a mod to reopen, start a new thread and link to the old...

Is the real goal of this statement simply that we don't bug the mods as much with inane trivia? (I am quite well aware of how quickly the PM box gets full at times.)

[Konrad Pierce]

Er ... now having said that ...

If - for whatever reason - some unprecedented new onslaught of spam suddenly floods the iPhone-jailbreaking thread ... it wasn't me!