Why doesn't ASC close old discussions for comments?

Would be a good idea to post a warning that the poster that the poster is replying to a post over a year old and ask if the poster wishes to continue.

Of course, this is probably beyond the capabilities of the current software folks.

Robert

You can use feedback to tell Apple:

http://www.apple.com/contact/feedback.html

It's happening because, with this new format people are searching when they type in their question. They see a thread and the newbies don't realize they're reviving long dead threads. Sending feedback is a good idea. the matter has been brought to the hosts' attention however perhaps hearing about it from 'john q regular user' may be beneficial to getting the matter kicked around in Apple admin and having something done.

praiford wrote:

I have noticed from time to time how some really old discussion questions pop up because someone decides to respond to it. The discussion can be 2-3 years old and is very confusing when it pops up and it takes a minute or two to figure out that it is old and the latest post is at least 3 or more pages away. I understand the need to keep the question around but I think after a post reaches a certain point in time, the discussion portion should be closed down so people can start their own comments which will make it easier for people to read and answer.

praiford

I know the post that prompted yours from yesterday

It appears that whatever the reply was, it violated the ToU in some way as by the time I got to it, there was nothing there there but the OP & ORs. There was that added "branched to a new discussion " statement however. babowa fell prey to replying 😉

IMHO, the down-side of closing old posts is that if an OP was genuinely helpful then, it might be helpful now AND benefit from Questioner giving it a bump to indicate as such. Baby and the bathwater. Hosts are competent to apply ToU rules when needed.

CCC

-- Any government will work if authority and responsibility are equal and coordinate. This does not insure "good" government; it simply insures that it will work. But such governments are rare -- most people want to run things but want no part of the blame. This used to be called the "back-seat driver syndrome."

babo

That OP was from a bygone day, huh?

Praiford --

Very thoughtful posts there.

Honestly, I've had really old posts reappear after 2-3 years, with the new posters thanking us for the (still) correct solutions!

So every one in a while, it turns out to be extremely helpful.

And, sometimes, a year or so later, someone will post a solution that will help future readers. You never know.

Anyway, thanks for caring.