Auto-Closing of topics?

I'm not dismissing the arguments against the policy. What I'm saying is that when a policy is enacted, as this one has been, it's essential that it be accompanied by formal documentation in a case like this where some special user procedure accompanies that policy. It's not reasonable to expect the users to hunt down some random forum thread where someone mentioned the procedure in passing.

It's actually how the forum already works. There is a "warn reviving old topic age":


You don't see it in action because it is set to a higher number than the "Auto-close topic after" setting.

This is how it would look:


1 Like

The deployment of that "Topic Revival" feature would be perfect. 120 days then a self service revival and no auto closure.

For a system run on a professional basis with proper handling of changes with notification to the users, testing of releases etc. etc. this comment certainly fits:

All of the ideas being put forward depend on users reading the advice given and following it and we all know how good they are at that. (Code tags, for example)

For instance, flagging a post as "Something Else" allows a user to enter text explaining what the problem is, but it is rare in my experience for it to be used. So, as a moderator I am left with a flagged post often with no obvious reason why it was done

Personally I think that topics should be automatically be closed after a period of time to prevent posts being added to zombie topics.

If a user wants to make a contribution to a closed topic then they can start a new one with a link to the closed one. If someone flags it as a duplicate or it is spotted by a mod as a possible duplicate then the 2 topics can be merged and if not then no real harm done

Anyone making suggestions for changes to the forum software needs to realise that it is not going to be customised just for us and ideas need to be passed to the Discourse project for consideration

There are, of course, options available to change the software in some ways, such as the totally inappropriate tooltip text on the code block icon, but nothing has happened with that since we started to use the new forum so don't hold your breath on changes of any sort being made

I love this place, but do not want a crap ton of required security backflips to make a post as I make dozens per day like many other active users.

Look at the potential solution to the specific problem discussed here and outlined in post #41 which, incidentally, is a simple configuration option. It introduces no security hurdles.

Will it take as long to get that changed as it has to get the tooltip on the code tag icon changed ?

How would I know? I'm just sharing information here. I will not be the one to decide if or when these settings are changed, just as I will not be the one to decide if or when a tooltip is changed.

1 Like

Who can make that decision ?

. . . and what is the procedure for requesting such a change? Creating an feature request in ?

I think GitHub issues are a very efficient way to track bugs and feature requests, far more so than forum posts, which are better suited for general discussion and support in my opinion. However, the forum community has not at all embraced this tool.

Interestingly, that issue tracker saw far more usage during the SMF forum era. It hasn't been used even once since the switch to Discourse, even though there have been many reports of perceived defects and feature requests here on the forum. That even after I was given maintainer permissions in the arduino/forum-issues repository and did a major clean up of the issues.

Also note that there are a lot of Arduino-tagged questions on Stackoverflow. Was there a conscious choice to not use these platforms?

There's even a very nice Arduino Stack Exchange!:

Stack Exchange has a different purpose than the forum. The types of conversations we have here on the forum would be absolutely inappropriate on Stack Exchange. They are both valuable.

@alranel recently made this generous sounding statement in the mega Do you like the new forum? - #1769 by sterretje thread at post: Do you like the new forum? - #1770 by alranel :

so maybe he could clarify what the procedure is for getting the, what appears to be a simple and IMHO desireable, change implemented, referred to by @pert in post #41 in this current thread.

Please provide a detailed proposal for the change you wish to be made.

Here it is. I can adapt it as required.

Configuration Change Request: sub forum Exhibition Gallery

Change the current configuration of the automatic thread closure feature in the sub forum Exhibition Gallery so that threads are closed after 9999 days after the creation date of the last post instead of the current 120 days. Activate the "warn reviving old topic" feature with an age parameter of 120 days in the same sub forum.

The justification for this is given in Auto-Closing of topics? :( - #17 by 6v6gt and is reproduced substantially unchanged below.

I see no reason why this should change not also apply to other subforums. However, note that some moderators have expressed some concerns mainly about an anticipated increased work load in handling inappropriate posts and this should be considered before extending the change to cover these other subforums.

Deadline: ASAP


There was a LIST of items that were being worked on in the old forum.
It was announced !

I know because I announced it :wink:

That "trust" you speak of was so often abused by noobs and spammers.
We had "soft locks" in the form of a simple text warning on the old forum but they were often ignored.

I have no objection to excluding a couple of categories and or extending the deadline of 120 days.

But all this fuss and just going around in circles does nothing to convince me of something else better suited to the task.

I spent some time looking now and found the following which I guess could be what you have now mentioned, although the declared functionality is somewhat limited compared with what was finally implemented.
My original google search of this site was something like "automatic closing of posts" in various permutations, which did not find it.

containing item 14:

Restrict ability to post to messages older than 120 days (or maybe some other period ) to those with more than 100 posts or the OP. {FR}
Common issue is NECRO posting and almost exclusively by noobs to older posts many time with the OP of that post not even a member of the forum any more. Side benefit would avoid spammers also using old posts they think would go under the radar.
( investigating)
Partly deployed for REPLY only
(TESTING including quick reply)

Given that it was posted as a "STICKY" on the most prominent section for some period of time, and that there were almost no comments against any of the items on the list.

There was an INORDINATE AMOUNT of my own time went into working with Arduino in the backroom to aid forum users and that is besides other Arduino related work (all unpaid BTW).
That list was just the tip of an iceberg of conversations.

You can probably feel why I am sort of at a loss to understand most of the fuss.
More so from newer members who don't seem to appreciate how bad some things were, or have no real experience of what is involved within the small but dedicated moderator community.

The only single thing to come out of this topic is that maybe one or two areas may benefit from excluding. The rest I am putting down to background noise. :hear_no_evil: :laughing:

All that I can well believe. Keeping that rickety old forum construct going clearly required a lot of manpower resources and of the appropriate skill level and I'm sure everyone recognizes that that was an amazing feat. Recognizing, naturally not with $$$ but with less tangible forms of appreciation such as karma points, notes of thanks in posts etc.

I understand that. That's also how I feel also about the projects I publish from time to time in the Exhibition Gallery. I've not made one cent from anything I've published there but it is nice to hear a few expressions of thanks, from time to time, from people who've been able to use some of the designs and, of course, I've benefited from building something I myself could use as a hobby activity.

Also with the moderation role, which I must say I am glad I don't have to do, clearly a huge amount of personal resources goes into that and of course, not forgetting the resources of many of the general volunteers on this site.
That is how the Arduino organization has harnessed, in only a semi commercial way, the power of an online community to support its products.

But moving on, the forum software has changed. The moderator role has moved to a less "forum software specific technical" activity, without the constant hacking necessary to keep software running, and hopefully then releasing more time to devote to the more user focused part of the moderator role.

So, this is where I started. There is a balancing act to perform between keeping a forum open and user friendly on the one hand and being easy to manage on the other hand. So when at one point, it may have been necessary to engage in strong efforts to tighten down the entry points for spam or other inappropriate posts which may have over-consumed moderator resources, now, hopefully, with the new software freeing up some of the resources which would otherwise have been used for forum maintenance tasks, there are opportunities to relax some of the earlier rules and thus improve the usability of the forum. Very specifically in this case, the hard closing of posts after 120 days.

Well, that comes down to more or less what you have said in your final paragraph that one or two areas will benefit from excluding. I currently count just one. Yes there may be a few additional spam posts to deal with but, hey, there are moderator resources to deal with that.