tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Forum features)

Andrew Stacey comments on "Forum features" (16422)

Andrew Stacey — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 00:44:59 -0700

This plugin looks suitable without any modification: http://vanillaforums.org/addon/377-auto-close

(If you would like me to test it beforehand, I can do so on my test forum.)

Scott Morrison comments on "Forum features" (16409)

Scott Morrison — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 13:05:35 -0700

Sounds great. Andrew, could you briefly point me in the right direction?

Andrew Stacey comments on "Forum features" (16408)

Andrew Stacey — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:59:26 -0700

I agree with Jose and Willie's suggestions. I don't know if the plugin currently has this ability, but I would think it easy enough to adapt it to make it do so.

WillieWong comments on "Forum features" (16405)

WillieWong — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 07:03:12 -0700

@HJRW: the meta operator is a projection.

+1 to Jose's point. But maybe it is not the stickiness that should be the deciding factor: can the plug-in be told explicitly to not put its paws on certain threads?

José Figueroa comments on "Forum features" (16404)

José Figueroa — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 05:23:03 -0700

I would not like some of the Sticky threads to be closed after some period of inactivity, though. Can the plug-in be configured so that sticky threads are not closed?

HJRW comments on "Forum features" (16401)

HJRW — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 02:23:59 -0700

Shouldn't this be posted at meta.meta.mathoverflow?

Seriously, though, it sounds like a good idea to me.

Andrew Stacey comments on "Forum features" (16400)

Andrew Stacey — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 01:35:55 -0700

Regarding the recent revival of the tetration thread, there is a plugin available for this forum which automatically closes threads after a certain period of inactivity. They can be reopened if a moderator wants to do so. I thought this might be useful, and thought it might be useful for others to know of its existence so that Scott can gauge whether there's enough support to consider installing it. (Hope that's okay, Scott!)

Of course, someone can simply open a new thread on an old topic, but that's a little more effort so makes it unlikely that a "random passerby" will do so. Moreover, if someone does want to post something legitimate on an old thread, it would be better to start a new thread, summarising some key points from the old one, and thus we don't have to re-read the whole of the old thread to get an idea of what the new posting is about.

However, there may be objections that I've overlooked and so if anyone spots them, best to record them here so that if Scott likes the idea, he has all the information necessary.

(I make no presumption that Scott will like this idea, I haven't contacted him about it.)