why is almost every important discussion closed?

The problem arises when the revived topic is no longer relevant to current situations.

i.e software changes, methods of doing things change.. solutions in the topic may no longer apply to current issues etc...

When a topic has not been touched for 45 days I believe was the time frame, it can be closed and a new one opened.

It also makes it easier for people to get answers relevant to their own situation. Most revivals of topics are caused by posts which are neither related to the original topic, nor are resolved by the suggestions in the follow up posts, so have really no business being in the same topic.

If a topic has been marked as solved and has not been touched in 45 days, its safe to say the issue is covered.

If any further discussion is required about it, and then starting a new topic linked to the older closed one is a better strategy.

This was debated back and forth extensively. 5, 10 year old topics were getting revived with nonsense. topics that had been dormant for several months getting brought back with unrelated questions, or simply to berate a post because the answer which may have been correct at the time is no longer functional.

Things advance pretty fast, and solutions may no longer apply. So having a topic opened that no longer offers the correct solution is just confusing.

Also if its older than 45 days and nobody has come back to comment on it or ask anything new, how is adding to it going to benefit anyone? Your basically posting to a thread nobody is likely to see, or come back for if all involved parties have been satisfied. Better to start your own thread, link to the old one if necessary and start a new discussion that will get viewed, and will get answered with fresh posts.

The hosts made the decision a month or so ago to lock dormant threads. There's arguments for and against.

http://www.apple.com/support/feedback/ - Online Support Feedback - "Use this form to send us your suggestions or report any problems you experienced finding support information or using support tools. We'd like to hear about it."

On the one side people were saying threads started 3 years ago may come up in a search and somebody adds onto it, but hardware and software may have changed a lot so somebody saying today about a previous post, "No, X doesn't work," may be completely wrong because when the first post was made X might have been the solution. Better to keep threads on a current basis.

On the other side, people may still run old hardware and software (kind of contrary to Apple's doctrine of only using the latest and greatest). Maybe a 3 year old topic is still relevant to that person and it does make sense to add to the flow. In the same camp are those who would prefer to keep dozens of "me too" repeat questions all bundled into megatopics and not see a hundred new topics because the me too crowd were shut out of older topics where they could cluster.

This determines the "gods" --> Apple Support Communities Use Agreement - https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-5952

and which God made that conclusion?

Patience is a virtue, and most conversations go silent for a while, before continuing.

Who decides whether ten minutes, half an hour, 30 days, or half a year is the criteria for a discusssion as being 'No Longer Useful'? And don't you think the fact that the same questions get re-asked repeatedly, proves that the 30 day assumption and rule, is an erroneous calculation. If not, we wouldn't have so many repeat questions and issues posted on the discussion forums. But we do. The proof is in the pudding. I would say 6 months to a year would be a fair time to allow discussions to be revived. i once owned a forum with 3000 members, and some discussions were revived after 3 years and became hot topics again!. I learned then never to program my forum software to close discussions or comments on posts that are older than Noah's Ark, because you never know when the topic is going to become a revived issue

Phil0124 wrote:

or simply to berate a post because the answer which may have been correct at the time is no longer functional.

Or, my favorite, to criticize the tone of someone who had answered years before.

IdrisSeabright wrote:

Phil0124 wrote:

or simply to berate a post because the answer which may have been correct at the time is no longer functional.

Or, my favorite, to criticize the tone of someone who had answered years before.

Indeed. 😕

IdrisSeabright wrote:

Limnos wrote:

On the other side, people may still run old hardware and software (kind of contrary to Apple's doctrine of only using the latest and greatest). Maybe a 3 year old topic is still relevant to that person and it does make sense to add to the flow.

In which case, it's pretty simple to link to the previous thread.

Yes. What's so wrong with a creating a new thread? If a particular topic relates to your issue, but somehow does not solve it for whatever reason, why is linking to it in a new post a bad thing?

In the case of very old topics, posters may not be active around here any more, or not be inclined to return to such an old thread. It's always better to create a new one that will be seen a by everyone, and be more likely to get an answer directly addressing the issue.

Phil0124 wrote:

😕

IdrisSeabright wrote:

Limnos wrote:

On the other side, people may still run old hardware and software (kind of contrary to Apple's doctrine of only using the latest and greatest). Maybe a 3 year old topic is still relevant to that person and it does make sense to add to the flow.

In which case, it's pretty simple to link to the previous thread.

Yes. What's so wrong with a creating a new thread? If a particular topic relates to your issue, but somehow does not solve it for whatever reason, why is linking to it in a new post a bad thing?

In the case of very old topics, posters may not be active around here any more, or not be inclined to return to such an old thread. It's always better to create a new one that will be seen a by everyone, and be more likely to get an answer directly addressing the issue.

There are people who have a strong sense of digital tidyness. They want to remove recents from Apple Maps, close out their apps on their iPhone. I suspect they also don't like the idea of having multiple threads about one subject. But, the reality is, even if you left every thread ever created open, people would still create new ones on subjects that already existed.

If the thread has been dormant for 30 days (the cut off for locking them), either the issue is no longer pressing or the particular thread wasn't useful to anyone.

IdrisSeabright wrote:

In which case, it's pretty simple to link to the previous thread.

Indeed, however that was more useful when the incoming link might have been highlighted for interested parties.

tt2

Personally I look at that change as a blessing. I have been asking for them to implement that at every opportunity I have had.

nwonogo wrote:

and which God made that conclusion?

The only ones that matter here: The Hosts.

Limnos wrote:

On the other side, people may still run old hardware and software (kind of contrary to Apple's doctrine of only using the latest and greatest). Maybe a 3 year old topic is still relevant to that person and it does make sense to add to the flow.

In which case, it's pretty simple to link to the previous thread.