Closing Old Threads July 29, 2002 12:32 PM   Subscribe

New feature: threads on MetaFilter more than a month old are now closed for new comments.
posted by mathowie to Feature Requests at 12:32 PM (28 comments total)

Ah, yes. I was wondering why, when I tried to post to this thread, it said it had been closed.

It works now. Very neat feature. I hope there are no plans to bring this to MetaTalk.
posted by rocketman at 12:36 PM on July 29, 2002


Good. If there is any need for a significant follow-up (very rare anyway) I suppose it'll be OK to post it with a link to the previous thread. Thanks too for giving us cult-threaders generous advance notice.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:37 PM on July 29, 2002


1142 (MeFi, not MeTa) = (1616 comments)
9622 = (1727 comments)

Interesting. *(whistles Queen tune)*
posted by eyeballkid at 12:37 PM on July 29, 2002


Good call, Matt. Nice work.

Although what most excites me about this thread is that it kicked a certain other MetaTalk thread off the front page.
posted by Tin Man at 12:40 PM on July 29, 2002


I forgot to add the feature has been also added to MetaTalk.

While I appreciate the additional sense of community and commradire that the cult threads brought to the site, they are a pointless drain on resources that I've mentioned several times. I'd like to convert all old threads to flat files, instead of database-driven to further save resources from things like search engine bots scouring for new content, and not having to worry about new comments being added makes that a lot easier.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:40 PM on July 29, 2002


I don't believe it.

Last post.

It really should have been someone else.
posted by yhbc at 12:40 PM on July 29, 2002


Sorry for linking to it, mathowie. I'm just a little - well, I don't know how I feel. The decision to close the old threads, though, was absolutely the right one.

Now, let us all move on. There is, as someone else has said, nothing to see here.
posted by yhbc at 12:43 PM on July 29, 2002


Easy for you to say, yhbc. Now we all have to see what the last post was.
posted by ashbury at 12:47 PM on July 29, 2002


Thanks, Matt. You tolerated that kind of childish silliness for longer than was humanly necessary.

MetaFilter: We've upped our standards, now up yours.
posted by ColdChef at 12:52 PM on July 29, 2002


Forgive me for being ignorant of the process of tracking-back ("back-tracking"? "track-backing"?) but does closing the thread also prevent new trackback links, or is that even possible?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:55 PM on July 29, 2002


does closing the thread also prevent new trackback links, or is that even possible?

I was just working on that stuff. Yeah, my fear with the trackbacks is abuse on old threads. It would be easy for someone to auto-trackback every old post, in order for them to gain ranking at google for whatever they're trying to sell.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:59 PM on July 29, 2002


MetaFilter: We've upped our standards, now up yours.

Slaphappy ColdChef comment of the day. thanks again, CC.
posted by Ufez Jones at 12:59 PM on July 29, 2002 [1 favorite]


This thread is over 30 days old, and has been closed for archival purposes.

Doesn't get more dignified than that, either!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:00 PM on July 29, 2002


Yeah, good call. The server's got to be real happy

Anyway, some threads could use some early shutdown.
Sorry but we're beyond Fark now, this is Usenet material

posted by matteo at 1:03 PM on July 29, 2002


Woo hoo! I think the cult threads were a big reason why this place is becoming a magnet for chatty cathies, so I'm happy to be able to tapdance on their grave.
posted by rcade at 1:13 PM on July 29, 2002


Here's a question -- does this set a de facto "statute of limitations" on double-posting since offenders can no longer be told to go back to the original post if it's 30+ days old?
posted by briank at 1:18 PM on July 29, 2002


Yeah - what's the policy now on DPs and follow-ups?
posted by Marquis at 1:20 PM on July 29, 2002


Because the purpose of the post is to publicize the link, a double post is still a double post, whether the original has expired or not. The discussion is just additional fun for us.

As for follow-ups, it seems like anyone with a follow-up more than thirty days after the original would probably be posting it to the front page anyway. Maybe posters should just be cautioned to think about whether a follow up is really necessary.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:24 PM on July 29, 2002


Double posts are still double posts. People can go back and re-read the comments and links contained.

I was under the impression that the point of making note of an identical post from 9 months or 2 years ago wasn't to redirect comments there, but to simply say "this has already been covered."
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:24 PM on July 29, 2002


We'll get a repeating set of threads that shows up every thirty days, heh. And then people will complain about it, and Matt will pull his hair out and realize that there's no pleasing you people.

That is, if he's got any left. (I have no idea what you look like, Matt, just trying to be figurative, here).
posted by beth at 1:26 PM on July 29, 2002


I have no idea what you look like, Matt

Please don't tempt the photoshoppers, Beth.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:29 PM on July 29, 2002


< margesimpson> Hmm... < /margesimpson>
posted by y2karl at 2:18 PM on July 29, 2002


matt's a good old boy.

posted by quonsar at 3:08 PM on July 29, 2002


*the SQL server sighs in relief*
posted by skallas at 4:04 PM on July 29, 2002


~Damnit, and I was hoping Matt would contact me first so I could push the server load to extremes the night before threads were closed.

Now to post 2000 posts to a thread in one day~
posted by Neale at 4:40 PM on July 29, 2002


nice! gj matth.
posted by jcterminal at 6:22 PM on July 29, 2002


I'm getting an error here, mentions "month ago"... related?
posted by benjh at 6:37 PM on July 29, 2002


~Now to post 2000 posts to a thread in one day~

You'll have to come up with a new schtick, Neale. Icey and I did that last year, and I got banned for it (well, for being an asshole afterwards, anyway).
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:32 PM on July 29, 2002


« Older MeTa throws up an error when given a bad link   |   Deleted thread notice Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments