Printed Circuit Board Assembly & PCB Design SMT Electronics Assembly Manufacturing Forum

Printed Circuit Board Assembly & PCB Design Forum

SMT electronics assembly manufacturing forum.


Old threads

Would it be possible to lock out old (say, no activity in 3 ... - Sep 13, 2002 by Steve Thomas  

No problem Dave. ... - Sep 24, 2002 by Brian Doyle  

#21549

Old threads | 13 September, 2002

Would it be possible to lock out old (say, no activity in 3 months) threads from being replied to and brought back up to the top?

It seems as though 9 out of 10 of these stale threads are brought back by vendors looking to plug their products, and they obviously have searched the archives for anything remotely applicable to their product line.

I understand that the vendors can contribute to the resolution of people's problems and that's what we're here for (and I thank you for that!), but to dig up a dead thread just to plug themselves isn't really providing a benefit, is it? I have to assume that if the thread's been dead for over 3 months, it's at least somewhat likely that the originator has solved his problem.

Thanks for listening.........

Steve

reply »

#21554

Old threads | 15 September, 2002

I agree with you Steve. I have tried to convince the fine folk at SMTnet about your very agrument for years. They listen, but are unmoved. I think they would be moved if we raised a stink about it

reply »

Brian Doyle

#21561

Old threads | 16 September, 2002

That would definitely do it.

We have thought about this a number of times as its been raised. The more people who are in support of it, the quicker it will happen.

reply »

dragonslayr

#21566

Old threads | 16 September, 2002

Brian - I can relate to and am one of the frustrated users with regards to obvious schilling for leads by careless sales types. Rather than lock out the threads so that a legitimate need can't be addressed, how about a terse letter to the offender from the site host and or banishment from the forum (user name lockout) for multiple occurence abusers?

respectfully and irreverently yours,

Michael Parker aka dragonslayr

"We are not human beings on a spiritual journey, rather we are spiritual beings on a human journey" some guy

reply »

#21570

Old threads | 16 September, 2002

Just for clarification, I was only suggesting locking out new posts to the thread, not yanking it from the archives or anything.

Wow, Mr. Parker was still around and I had no clue! I may start paying more attention to draonslayr's posts.

reply »

dragonslayr

#21572

Old threads | 16 September, 2002

Steve- ya can kick an ol' dog but ya can't always make 'em disappear. Yup, I'm still around, had about a 6-7 month hiatus this year (company closure) Now I'm back in the trenches, kickin' ass and takin' names.

To clarify my earlier point, I am not sure that preventing new posts to old threads would be wise. On the rare occasion that something needs to be added aka new information, an update to someones inquiry , etc. , it would be convenient to have the whole thread available. Otherwise, a new complementary thread would be required with references made to the original thread. cumbersome at best, I would say.

To address the hosers that are just using the archives and forums to generate sales contacts - I say bend 'em over and give 'em a hot poker without benefit of lubrication.

Block their access for their shameless abuses.

For the rest of us shameless hussies, at least tolerate our infrequent colorful remarks and tongue in cheek humor. If we can't laugh at ourselves, the whole thing has gotten too serious and somebody needs to take some time off and figure the reality of life.

reply »

#21578

Old threads | 17 September, 2002

How ablout locking out threads that are three months or older but still allowing a viewer to respond to the poster via a direct e-mail. Often the perpetrators are first time users who either don't realize that this is a forum to help industry types improve or the perpetrator just doesn't care. This has been discussed on numerous occasions yet there are still suppliers who repeatedly violate the rules. In these cases they should be banished, sponsor or not.

reply »

#21585

Old threads | 17 September, 2002

I guess I see your point. I'm not sure I agree, but frankly I'm not in the mood to debate anything today.

Sorry to hear abour your hiatus, although glad to hear it's over. It looks like mine may begin any time....our Chinese connection, shoddy as it is, is being given the thumbs up by the CEO.

reply »

Brian Doyle

#21601

Old threads | 17 September, 2002

blocking access isn't as easy as it seems.

One way we could do this (which has been proposed again recently) is to require site registration to post.

Registration takes about 30 seconds and is pretty non-invasive so I don't really see it as an obstacle. However there are some issues there with some of the other sites that have our forum.

What do you all think about this idea?

reply »

#21602

Old threads | 17 September, 2002

It certainly wouldn't bother me to be required to register. I belong to other forums (unrelated) that require registration for just that reason. Anyone can be blocked by the admin.

reply »

dragonslayr

#21605

Old threads | 17 September, 2002

yea yea yea - another voice from the chorus weighing in- I think you are on the right track here- I can imagine some of your difficulties with co-registration with other sites.

And what of the current users? do we all need to register to continue? will you grandfather us in? will DaveF have another solution (I think it wise to hear from Mr. Wizard)

at least the registration idea gives you a handle to directly arm twist abusers (OK- naive types who just didn't know better)

- thanx for being proactive

reply »

Brian Doyle

#21609

Old threads | 18 September, 2002

well you're already registered, there wouldn't be a need to re-register.

You can tell who is registered and who is not by their posting name. If it is a link and has the profile head next to it they are registered.

reply »

Ken Bliss

#21658

Old threads | 20 September, 2002

Hi Brian

I see no reason why people cannot register, so the forum can be controlled. If they have legitimate business to discuss why would they not be willing to register.

I think the responses from regulars to sales types are excessively abrasive. We can all easily ignore a blatant sales pitch, although i agree that when that occurs, Brian Doyle should just delete it and send an email to that person telling them to reword it and not to do it again, if they refuse to follow guidelines block their access, I doubt you will end up blocking anyone because they will stop.

Without the end users there is no forum because there are no problems being found, without the equipment manufacturers you have no factories and therefore no problems to discuss. ironic isn�t it. Yes we all need each other.

I am in favor of requiring registration.

I am also in favor of locking our archives after 3 months, there is lots of repeat questions and answers anyway and people like to rediscuss things that is what a forum is all about. Otherwise when the archives have the answer to every issue we will not need a forum anymore. People should be able to go into the archives and send an email to one or more responses offline if they so choose, but again if they are sales pitches the recipient should just forward the pitch to Brian Doyle.

reply »

Brian Doyle

#21659

Old threads | 20 September, 2002

We're definitely going to be reviewing the registration requirement for this forum. It was talked about in the past but seemed to have much more resistance than I'm seeing now (which is none).

We'll also be taking a look at the idea of locking old threads.

And I'll mention that we are putting together a focus group for users who wish to be involved in site chages. If you're interested just fill out the form at the following page:

http://www.smtnet.com/about/index.cfm?fuseaction=focus_group

reply »

#21661

Old threads | 20 September, 2002

I love this!!! * A bunch of forum users complain about the misuse of old threads. * 'Pointy-Headed Boss' says, "We're going to require registration [that has nothing to do with the complaint and will make the forum less accessable] and we're not going to anything about misuse of old threads."

... and the best part, 'Pointy-Headed Boss' then says, "We want forum users' advice on making the forum better."

Where the eff is my GD Zoloft?

reply »

Brian Doyle

#21662

Old threads | 20 September, 2002

I love dilbert.

Anyhow we're going to do something about both. Locking old threads solves one problem, requiring registration requires another.

Some of the proposed solutions to people who violate rules (like bumping old threads) was to ban them. I would need registration to ban (well at least to do it easily).

I guess I just see locking the threads as half the solution. We haven't done anything yet, just soliciting opinions.

And the focus group pitch isn't just for the forum.

reply »

#21710

Old threads | 23 September, 2002

Brian,

I'm sorry to have said things that may have offended you or cast doubt on you efforts to make the Forum better. My earlier posting was hostile and not good spirited. Please accept my apology.

Dave

reply »

Brian Doyle

#21720

Old threads | 24 September, 2002

No problem Dave.

reply »

BGA Rework Services

StikNPeel™ Rework Stencils