Forum issues are discussed here

[tokenbrit]

On another thread Matthias suggested locking posts after a certain period of inactivity and only allowing existing users the ability to unlock and post/edit. It turns out that may actually be possible. If it is, I have a few questions for the members:

1) What do you think would be an appropriate period of inactivity before a post is locked?
2) At what point (age of account, post count) should a user be allowed to access locked posts?
3) Do you think this is a good idea? If not, do you have any other ideas/suggestions?

Thanks in advance for your feedback and helping to maintain the quality of this forum!

-Moderator

1) Much as Pete said: a few months, probably not much more than 3...
2) Probably a month or 2; something like ten or twenty posts...
3) should be #1 ;) depends on how much effort to implement, and perception it gives of the forum with a whole bunch of locked threads - not exactly inviting to new members, but then I don't really understand joining a forum and starting by raking over old coals rather than an introduction or something topical...

Overall, I don't know that it's a big problem - the forum regulars will tend to spot it and, in most cases, where there's positive intent, prompt (re)direction from a mod would/should suffice.

Do new members get directed to the forum rules, like clicking to accept t's & c's, or do they currently just join & lurk, or launch into their agenda?

Realistically, necroposting is on the new joiner rather than a reason to lock things down, isn't it? And, if a new member questions, challenges, or is generally antagonistic in response to forum rules that's a red flag and needs moderator intervention, but that should be focused on the new member, more so than locking old(er) threads, imo.

Didn't intend to write that much. Tldr: locking seems heavy handed, maybe enough to flag to a mod if new members appear more intent on preaching than joining the discussion.

[matthias]

My concern is that redundant threads could clutter and confuse things, but the post volume on this forum is low enough that may not be an issue.
-Moderator

What might be helpful to reduce the post volume is that you enable only quoting the last post and not the composite post of several posts before. This is what most forums do. I like it.

[matthias]

1) What do you think would be an appropriate period of inactivity before a post is locked?
2) At what point (age of account, post count) should a user be allowed to access locked posts?
3) Do you think this is a good idea? If not, do you have any other ideas/suggestions?

1) Three months before the thread is locked.
2) Post count at least 20, better 50. Age of account doesn't matter, only post count. At the last case of necroposting the age of account was six months!
3) Yes

[DelNaja]

I don't contribute much on the forum, but I read it regularly (almost every day) and enjoy and appreciate it very much.

I'm not sure locking things up is the way to go, though. I agree with tokenbrit, why not just ban the antagonist/troll? Do we really need to make it harder to post in old threads? Do antagonists/trolls really pose such a threat that the suggested measures are warranted?

[matthias]

I agree with tokenbrit, why not just ban the antagonist/troll? Do we really need to make it harder to post in old thread?

Prevention is much better than to react after necroposting/spamming. So just to ban is not a such good idea since the troll most probably will leave anyway. And to unlock an old thread should be as easy as to post something (if not easier).
I can imagine to have just a button below an old thread with UNLOCK THREAD and it is done (for existing members only).

Edit: It should get even easier. As existing member you could post anyway without unlocking. The thread would be locked only for newcomers.

[tokenbrit]

If it's easy - just a few settings in phpBB - and unobtrusive except, intentionally, to new members*, then I'm not completely against the idea. I just question the effort vs effectiveness vs extent of the problem... and if we only apply it to older threads, not current, that wouldn't prevent the problem, just zombie threads; not spam, troll posting.

Personally, I feel like reporting rather than reacting, and moderator intervention, will still be necessary & just as, if not more effective without possibly unwelcoming lock down of the forum to newbies, but I don't know the moderator workload, and I don't know phpBB.

How much are site stats looked at, and would they offer insight into whether it's effective, &/or detrimental, if the change is implemented?

* if that's what we want / how we want to be

[matthias]

I think the more the forum settings are for prevention of troll attacks the less is the workload for moderators.
Locking of old threads for newbies is directed to do prevention since the troll can not post there and then there is no need for the moderator to react.
Further I see no issues for newbies because there are a lot of unlocked threads where they can post and (afaik) they are even allowed to create new threads.

[tokenbrit]

I think the more the forum settings are for prevention of troll attacks the less is the workload for moderators.
Locking of old threads for newbies is directed to do prevention since the troll can not post there and then there is no need for the moderator to react.
Further I see no issue for newbies because there are a lot of unlocked threads where they can post and (afaik) they are even allowed to create new threads.

So still plenty of opportunity for spamming or trolling, which is why I’m not sure it’ll be effective against the underlying problem, and the recent prompt for this discussion now…

Locking older threads won’t change that ~ someone who joins with intent to cause issue will still find ways to do so, and that needs us all to monitor & report for moderator intervention - no change there. If you lock older threads, you may deter genuinely well intentioned newcomers from commenting & contributing - that’s why I asked about what’s communicated to newcomers and what they sign~up to & accept when joining… it may be a 4 or 5 month old thread that brought them here - do we really want them to post 20 or 50 times before they can post to that thread? And what about long term members with low post counts - are they grandfathered in? It risks losing engagement and doesn’t prevent trolling of more recent threads.

We need to find the right balance, and avoid being exclusive. It’s not like there’s a high volume of spam, which makes occurrences more obvious & irritating. If we do make changes, I question how we’ll measure the effectiveness, &/or any detriment, as well as how clear any of it will be if not communicated as part of the sign-up process.

[Whatsmynaim]

What if the first, or first few posts by a new member had to be approved by a moderator before going live on the forum?
It'll of course be clearly communicated to everyone signing up for a new account how it's working.
That alone should hopefully stop most people with bad intentions from even trying.

[matthias]

We need to find the right balance, and avoid being exclusive.

I agree, let us talking about finding the right balance.

As a member here I was absolutely displeased to get attacked with "argumentum ad hominem" by a troll or spammer after I told him something about what we think here about musicality and the forum rules.
This person jumped on a three years old thread, the last post was from 2020. Spammers and trolls love to necropost old threads. Does it makes sense to let these threads open? I don't think so.

Let us look over the fence to other audio forums.
On the Audirvana community forum for example you find the remark " This topic will close 3 months after the last reply."
That means it can not be opened again by a member.
However, new members on this forum have absolutely no problems to open a new thread or to post a question.

Here on this forum we are talking only about locking and unlocking an old thread, not even closing.

Do you really think a new member is unable to open a new thread and post a question? My experience is that new members are very confident and do not need to jump on an old thread.

[tokenbrit]

We need to find the right balance, and avoid being exclusive.

I agree, let us talking about finding the right balance.

As a member here I was absolutely displeased to get attacked with "argumentum ad hominem" by a troll or spammer after I told him something about what we think here about musicality and the forum rules.
This person jumped on a three years old thread, the last post was from 2020. Spammers and trolls love to necropost old threads. Does it makes sense to let these threads open? I don't think so.

Let us look over the fence to other audio forums.
On the Audirvana community forum for example you find the remark " This topic will close 3 months after the last reply."
That means it can not be opened again by a member.
However, new members on this forum have absolutely no problems to open a new thread or to post a question.

Here on this forum we are talking only about locking and unlocking an old thread, not even closing.

Do you really think a new member is unable to open a new thread and post a question? My experience is that new members are very confident and do not need to jump on an old thread.

I get it, Matt. I was surprised this didn't get reported and or reacted to promptly by the moderator team - I understand the displeasure.

The member actually joined in April, but the post & exchange in question were first posts... This happened in an old thread, but you ask about new members opening a new thread. Of course they can and the unsavory exchange between the two of you could just as easily have taken place in a new thread. That's exactly why I don't think locking old threads is necessarily the appropriate change.

The terminology used in the first post raised flags. If you'd flagged the post, and/or a moderator had stepped in, I don't know that we'd be discussing the issue like this. A reminder of 'house rules' by a moderator might have been sufficient, it might not. I do feel the response to you was out of line...

I think a probation period, as suggested by Whatsmynaim, would be more effective. If newcomers can post without moderation, then this situation could happen again, even with all old threads locked. I'm sorry this happened, but I'm not convinced it's the old thread that is the issue.

I'll make this my last post here as I don't want to infuriate you further, Matthias. I'll leave it to others to contribute, and decisions to be made.

[matthias]

What if the first, or first few posts by a new member had to be approved by a moderator before going live on the forum?
It'll of course be clearly communicated to everyone signing up for a new account how it's working.
That alone should hopefully stop most people with bad intentions from even trying.

I think this is an excellent idea and might solve most problems with spammers/trolls.

IMO, further the Forum Rules viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13
should be integrated in the registration procedure, so that the prospective new member must explicitly agree in order to get registrated to the forum.

@tokenbrit
It's all good, we have a great community here!

[ThomasOK]

I have mixed feelings about locking older threads although I can understand limiting new members access if this is becoming a problem (as it appeared to me in the thread that brought this up). Closing old threads doesn't seem as good an idea to me as we do sometimes have threads that have been dormant for a while that have good reason to come back to life. A likely future example is The Sound of LP12 Plinths which is certainly likely to become active again when the LP12-50s become more present out in the wild with their "Bedrock" plinth. But that isn't an argument against limiting access for trolls, just for not permanently closing down any threads all together unless they get nasty.

[FairPlayMotty]

With all due respect to Matt but the following statement by him breached the forum rules:

"Audiophile fuses are pure madness"

Moderation of any forum isn't effective unless it's consistently applied to old and new members without bias. Effective and timely moderation can defuse situations.

[markiteight]

What if the first, or first few posts by a new member had to be approved by a moderator before going live on the forum?
It'll of course be clearly communicated to everyone signing up for a new account how it's working.
That alone should hopefully stop most people with bad intentions from even trying.

I am willing to consider this suggestion, but if we decide to implement it I'm going to need help. I do my best to monitor each and every post made on the forum, but even with the relatively light volume of traffic here, I can't be all seeing/all hearing, all the time. This is exacerbated by the fact that I am (at least for the time being) on the other side of the world from the majority of members here, so a lot of the activity here happens while I'm asleep. Manually approving posts will require at least one other person (who isn't Fredrik) to insure we have continuous monitoring.

As a member here I was absolutely displeased to get attacked with "argumentum ad hominem" by a troll or spammer after I told him something about what we think here about musicality and the forum rules.
This person jumped on a three years old thread, the last post was from 2020. Spammers and trolls love to necropost old threads. Does it makes sense to let these threads open? I don't think so.

I'm sorry you got targeted on this forum but I commend you for the way you handled it.

I get it, Matt. I was surprised this didn't get reported and or reacted to promptly by the moderator team - I understand the displeasure.

I'm not a fan of overly heavy handed moderation. By the time I saw the interaction other members had stepped in and handled the situation calmly and professionally. Any further intervention by me would essentially have amounted to, "YAH! What they already said!" Not particularly helpful.

Both Fredrik and I agree that the poster in question is likely genuine, and their initial post was well intentioned. Unfortunately it was made without fully understanding the purpose and operation of this forum. This is understandable. Even if new members are required to acknowledge they have read the rules before they are accepted, there's no way to determine if they *actually* read the rules. How many of us have clicked "Accept" without actually reading the Terms and Conditions? What wasn't acceptable was the way the new poster behaved when their transgression was pointed out.

The terminology used in the first post raised flags. If you'd flagged the post, and/or a moderator had stepped in, I don't know that we'd be discussing the issue like this. A reminder of 'house rules' by a moderator might have been sufficient, it might not. I do feel the response to you was out of line...

In which case I guess it's a good thing the first post didn't get flagged/moderated! I appreciate this discussion and the opportunity to further refine the forum's operation

With all due respect to Matt but the following statement by him breached the forum rules:

"Audiophile fuses are pure madness"

How? In what way is expressing one's opinion (or stating a fact) a violation of the rules?

-Moderator

[FairPlayMotty]

Either of these rules was breached by Matt's comment:

Unnecessary negativity (such as "I don't believe in that and have no intention of finding out for myself"),
Unscientific comments like "that's impossible according to my knowledge of physics/human hearing" or "measurements prove that this solution is better

Prior to your time as a moderator, moderation of this forum was quite strict. There was a statement made along the lines of "SSDs cannot possibly sound different from manufacturer to manufacturer". A warning was given.

The new guy who liked the effect of his fuses was entitled to his opinion. To the best of my knowledge there's no science around audiophile fuses. Therefore condemning one member's enthusiasm as, "pure madness" is a rule breach.

Should you need me to detail what, "unscientific" or "unnecessary negativity" mean I'm happy to don my legal hat and explain the terms of the forum rules relative to the posts in detail.

Matt's exposure to this debate is unfortunate - Matt is the most effective poser of meaningful questions across multiple audio forums I've encountered. He's been insulted by a few regular contributors to this forum and he's usually Teflon coated - I don't understand how this new member's replies have engendered an exaggerated response. Go well Matt!

[matthias]

I don't understand how this new member's replies have engendered an exaggerated response.

I apologize if I breached the forum rules with my comment about audiophile fuses.

Some "audiophile" fuses are now priced north of 3k for one fuse and I dislike the hype about "audiophile" luxury products, not only fuses but also cables and other products.

[Charlie1]

Hadn't heard of the 'necroposting' term until today. I wasn't aware that people saw this as a problem and it never bothered me.

Occassionally people join for the purpose of responding to an old topic, but yeah, they could link to it but I don't see an issue in just responding to it.

[matthias]

Without wanting to stir up a hornets nest I think an old thread should be closed one year after the last post or even earlier.
If there are really new aspects to an old topic it is better to start a new thread with a new subject.

That doesn't mean that the valuable information in these old threads is lost, they stay on the forum and can be searched as well.

The primary reason is not (only) preventing of troll attacks and necroposting but to keep the forum more fresh and alive.

[springwood64]

Response times for the forum seem to be getting slower.

This is usually a sign of approaching failure in the system ...

[lejonklou]

Yes, I’ve noticed that too.

Will try to resolve it.

[lejonklou]

My sincere apologies for the terrible response times, which have only gotten worse during this week.

Hope to have it sorted out soon. Thank you for your patience!

[springwood64]

My sincere apologies for the terrible response times, which have only gotten worse during this week.

Hope to have it sorted out soon. Thank you for your patience!

It seems to be nice and responsive again.

[lejonklou]

It was for a while, but now we have troubles again.

Apologies for this! I might have to change our service provider, although it’s a little impractical right now as we’re also moving the lab to new and bigger premises.

[Nature]

Ironic that I was met with this message when I tried to browse into this part of the forum:

Service Unavailable
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.

:-)