Moderator locked threads - tag removal, is that wise | SUMO community discussions | Forums

June 19, 2012, 10:56:49 PM PDT

IIRC moderator locked threads are having tags removed, presumably to make it difficult to search for them. (did the bug say this is not the case for automatically locked threads - when are threads automatically locked ? - I thought that proposal stalled)

I would have thought that should be optional.

Possibly it should depend on the reason for the locking. If a thread is d hijacked / drifting from the topic locking it may be a good idea, the sooner the better. Whilst if it is locked quickly it is still useful, the value is degraded as soon as the locking decision is made because the tags are removed when it is locked.

IIRC moderator locked threads are having tags removed, presumably to make it difficult to search for them. (did the bug say this is not the case for automatically locked threads - when are threads automatically locked ? - I thought that proposal stalled) I would have thought that should be optional. Possibly it should depend on the reason for the locking. If a thread is d hijacked / drifting from the topic locking it may be a good idea, the sooner the better. Whilst if it is locked quickly it is still useful, the value is degraded as soon as the locking decision is made because the tags are removed when it is locked.

Ricky Rosario 328 posts

June 19, 2012, 11:35:49 PM PDT

Tags shouldn't be removed when locking? Do you have a specific example?

I locked this question on stage and it still has it's tags:

https://support.allizom.org/en-US/questions/780230

Tags shouldn't be removed when locking? Do you have a specific example? I locked this question on stage and it still has it's tags: https://support.allizom.org/en-US/questions/780230

Ricky Rosario 328 posts

June 19, 2012, 11:36:29 PM PDT

Or I should say, tags aren't automatically removed. If moderators are removing the tags, that is a different story.

Or I should say, tags aren't '''automatically''' removed. If moderators are removing the tags, that is a different story.

NoahSUMO 527 posts

June 20, 2012, 10:13:40 AM PDT

Hey John, which locked threads have no tags? I've never seen a tagless thread and when I lock threads I don't remove the tags. I mean they could still be found via a search if the keyword matched a word in the title. Honestly, removing the tags is pointless as the tags really have no significance on search.

Frequent tags I see are general, desktop, addon, websites, Windows 7 and so on. Very generic tags that really don't stop anyone from finding a locked thread. Got any examples you can post so I can take a look?

Hey John, which locked threads have no tags? I've never seen a tagless thread and when I lock threads I don't remove the tags. I mean they could still be found via a search if the keyword matched a word in the title. Honestly, removing the tags is pointless as the tags really have no significance on search. Frequent tags I see are general, desktop, addon, websites, Windows 7 and so on. Very generic tags that really don't stop anyone from finding a locked thread. Got any examples you can post so I can take a look?

John99 3665 posts

June 20, 2012, 7:53:04 PM PDT

Hi All,
sorry for the delay in replying. I was looking at the sumo videos again.

This is something that is planned, has a short discussion ^[2], an open bug ^[3], and happened recently accidentally^[4].

I thought I recalled specific mention of this in a recent Sumo video, and from this possibly phantom recollection I thought it was differentiating between automatically locked ^[1] threads and moderator locked threads. If it was in a Sumo video I have not come across it again yet.

My thoughts being that some moderator locked threads may need hiding but many do not. Some threads may be obscure dealing with a rare problem, or something outdated. We may not want users posting in them, and may not want them in the top search results, but some users and contributors may still find the information useful.

Drifting further off topic, maybe someone should review our Sumo bugs. May some of them need a tidy up the resolutions, whiteboards & milestones shown on them.

More vague recollections. I brought up this subject partly because of

Tags becoming more important
I am under the impression that part of the IA project recommendations were I believe to increase the tagging of articles, and have a larger controlled vocabulary of tags. We do already have a filter on the SUMU UI so that posts may be filtered by tags. It looks to me as if tags may start to become more important than they are at present.
Google no robot
I also seem to recollect proposals to remove some threads from google searches, so that leaves us reliant on our internal searches to find the more obscure threads.

Footnotes

[1] automatically locking threads, I am confused again !
I thought it was going ahead after a recent, repeat, very ^[5] long discussion. A ^[5a] consensus ^[5b] was reached, and bug filed, initially scheduled for sprints; but seems to have been left open and inactive.
Auto locking the majority of inactive threads whilst leaving such threads visible would make the forums much better in my opinion

[2] Short discussion [Proposal] Lock threads and remove tags /forums/contributors/707738

[3] BUG Bug 712901 - If a forum thread is locked, strip tags

[4] It happened. Accident corrected with Bug 746089 - closing a thread removes it from all listings

[5] Very long discussion: Locking old Support Threads /forums/contributors/708115
[5a] consensus /forums/contributors/708115?page=4 [5b] Open bug, initially marked for sprints but inactive Bug 680924 - Auto-lock threads in the support forum (questions) after some time

Hi All, sorry for the delay in replying. I was looking at the sumo videos again. This is something that is planned, has a short discussion [2], an open bug [3], and happened recently accidentally[4]. I thought I recalled specific mention of this in a recent Sumo video, and from this possibly phantom recollection I thought it was differentiating between automatically locked [1] threads and moderator locked threads. If it was in a Sumo video I have not come across it again yet. My thoughts being that some moderator locked threads may need hiding but many do not. Some threads may be obscure dealing with a rare problem, or something outdated. We may not want users posting in them, and may not want them in the top search results, but some users and contributors may still find the information useful. Drifting further off topic, maybe someone should review our Sumo bugs. May some of them need a tidy up the resolutions, whiteboards & milestones shown on them. ------------------- More vague recollections. I brought up this subject partly because of # Tags becoming more important I am under the impression that part of the IA project recommendations were I believe to increase the tagging of articles, and have a larger controlled vocabulary of tags. We do already have a filter on the SUMU UI so that posts may be filtered by tags. It looks to me as if tags may start to become more important than they are at present. # Google no robot I also seem to recollect proposals to remove some threads from google searches, so that leaves us reliant on our internal searches to find the more obscure threads. --------------------- Footnotes [1] automatically locking threads, I am confused again ! I thought it was going ahead after a recent, repeat, very [5] long discussion. A [5a] consensus [5b] was reached, and bug filed, initially scheduled for sprints; but seems to have been left open and inactive. Auto locking the majority of inactive threads whilst leaving such threads visible would make the forums much better in my opinion [2] Short discussion [Proposal] Lock threads and remove tags [/forums/contributors/707738] [3] BUG [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=712901 Bug 712901 - If a forum thread is locked, strip tags ] [4] It happened. Accident corrected with [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=746089 Bug 746089 - closing a thread removes it from all listings ] [5] Very long discussion: ''Locking old Support Threads'' [/forums/contributors/708115] [5a] consensus [/forums/contributors/708115?page=4] [5b] Open bug, initially marked for sprints but inactive [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=680924#c4 Bug 680924 - Auto-lock threads in the support forum (questions) after some time ]

NoahSUMO 527 posts

June 21, 2012, 10:02:20 AM PDT

About auto locking threads, there is one MAJOR problem. And I'm not sure if anyone realizes this. If any thread is edited (or has any reply in it modified) or locked (and possibly unlocked), that will cause the thread to jump up and fly to the top of page 1. Which I really hate.

Bug 587282 - Editing any post or thread bumps it to top of page 1

Can you imagine every thread that was created between July 2010 and December 2011 (or later) being auto locked and flooding the first 300 pages with nothing but old threads? That's my nightmare.

I filed that bug on this a long time ago but didn't hound anyone on getting it assigned to a sprint. I took 2011 off and when returning in 2012, wasn't sure if my bug could easily be fixed within the current sprint (the one that deals with the forums). So I stayed quiet.

I'll ask Ricky & Will, and see how much work my bug entails. Basically it's ignoring timestamps or not writing them at all when locking threads. So I'm wanting us not to record timestamps whenever a thread is locked which I'm not sure how much coding that entails.

So I hope auto-locking threads isn't implemented until my bug has been addressed. I'll see if I can mark it as blocking Bug 680924 - Auto-lock threads.

Sorry John, I kept forgetting to mention my bug when you kept bringing up why isn't auto-locking being implemented. My guess is that work for this is too time consuming/complex for this sprint or just kept slipping by the radar because it's ranked as a low priority unofficially or officially. Or even out of sight, out of mind.

About auto locking threads, there is one MAJOR problem. And I'm not sure if anyone realizes this. If any thread is edited (or has any reply in it modified) or locked (and possibly unlocked), that will cause the thread to jump up and fly to the top of page 1. Which I really hate. [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=587282 Bug 587282 - Editing any post or thread bumps it to top of page 1] Can you imagine every thread that was created between July 2010 and December 2011 (or later) being auto locked and flooding the first 300 pages with nothing but old threads? That's my nightmare. I filed that bug on this a long time ago but didn't hound anyone on getting it assigned to a sprint. I took 2011 off and when returning in 2012, wasn't sure if my bug could easily be fixed within the current sprint (the one that deals with the forums). So I stayed quiet. I'll ask Ricky & Will, and see how much work my bug entails. Basically it's ignoring timestamps or not writing them at all when locking threads. So I'm wanting us not to record timestamps whenever a thread is locked which I'm not sure how much coding that entails. So I hope auto-locking threads isn't implemented until my bug has been addressed. I'll see if I can mark it as blocking [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=680924#c4 Bug 680924 - Auto-lock threads]. Sorry John, I kept forgetting to mention my bug when you kept bringing up why isn't auto-locking being implemented. My guess is that work for this is too time consuming/complex for this sprint or just kept slipping by the radar because it's ranked as a low priority unofficially or officially. Or even ''out of sight, out of mind''.

John99 3665 posts

June 21, 2012, 11:24:53 AM PDT

Ok thanks for an explanation. I know there are constraints and priorities need to be set, and if auto locking is going to need a lot of work it is less likely it will be done. We are at last getting good results and approaching 100% answered within 72 hrs on a fairly regular basis. Something is still needing to be done with all the unsolved posts some of those will disapear if locked as inactive. And users will be more likely to start a new thread or maybe post in a new and active thread if old ones are locked.

I am not actually sure the bump on edit effect is normally wrong, maybe it is correct if information is added that the post should go up to the first page.

I can see as you say that is totally wrong if there is a mass auto locking. Once auto locking is established though there will not be a very large daily number of auto locked posts it may not be too disruptive even if they did surface. Lets remember we are looking almost exclusively at unsolved or no reply posts that need a contributors attention, as long as locked threads are not found by such filters there is no problem.

I can not start to understand the code involved, and this may be rather naive, but if threads are being autolocked one key factor being considered in the auto locking algorithm is presumably the timestamp of the last action. May it be fairly trivial in such circumstances to make whatever changes are required and set the locked flag or whatever; and at the same time read and then restore the time stamp to its original setting, or as you said just not change it.

Ok thanks for an explanation. I know there are constraints and priorities need to be set, and if auto locking is going to need a lot of work it is less likely it will be done. We are at last getting good results and approaching 100% answered within 72 hrs on a fairly regular basis. Something is still needing to be done with all the unsolved posts some of those will disapear if locked as inactive. And users will be more likely to start a new thread or maybe post in a new and active thread if old ones are locked. I am not actually sure the bump on edit effect is normally wrong, maybe it is correct if information is added that the post should go up to the first page. I can see as you say that is totally wrong if there is a mass auto locking. Once auto locking is established though there will not be a very large daily number of auto locked posts it may not be too disruptive even if they did surface. Lets remember we are looking almost exclusively at unsolved or no reply posts that need a contributors attention, as long as locked threads are not found by such filters there is no problem. I can not start to understand the code involved, and this may be rather naive, but if threads are being autolocked one key factor being considered in the auto locking algorithm is presumably the timestamp of the last action. May it be fairly trivial in such circumstances to make whatever changes are required and set the locked flag or whatever; and at the same time read and then restore the time stamp to its original setting, or as you said just not change it.

Ricky Rosario 328 posts

June 21, 2012, 11:07:09 PM PDT

I commented in the bug:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=680924#c19

I commented in the bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=680924#c19

John99 3665 posts

June 21, 2012, 11:46:53 PM PDT

Thanks Ricky,

Part of your comment asks if it is a problem not knowing when it was locked.

I do not see that becoming a problem.

The current proposals are very conservative and are only effectively locking totally inactive posts. No-one will really care when they were locked. If they meet the locking conditions they are already dead. The proposed conditions for locking from comment 1 are

I'd like to lock threads when they match all of the below conditions:
>180 days after when it was asked
No answers in the past 60 days
< 5 "I have this problem too" votes in the past 30 days

Thanks Ricky, Part of your comment asks if it is a problem not knowing when it was locked. I do not see that becoming a problem. The current proposals are very conservative and are only effectively locking totally inactive posts. No-one will really care when they were locked. If they meet the locking conditions they are already dead. The proposed conditions for locking from comment 1 are <blockquote>I'd like to lock threads when they match all of the below conditions: * >180 days after when it was asked * No answers in the past 60 days * < 5 "I have this problem too" votes in the past 30 days<blockquote/>

Ibai 301 posts

June 22, 2012, 3:24:41 AM PDT

I opened a similar bug to the one from Noah: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=701385

I'm wondering if we should unify both of them and define what bumps threads and what doesn't. I think that only new answers should bump them...or perhaps a certain level of me-too's in a week (2+ maybe? )

Any other maintenance action should not move the thread (locking, solving, helpfulness..etc).

The way I see it is that threads are bumped to get attention by the contributors. Helpfulness and Solutions are important for users searching for answers. By bumping threads that don't require further attention from Contributors we are pushing down threads that do.

Any other take on this?

I opened a similar bug to the one from Noah: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=701385 I'm wondering if we should unify both of them and define what bumps threads and what doesn't. I think that only new answers should bump them...or perhaps a certain level of me-too's in a week (2+ maybe? ) Any other maintenance action should not move the thread (locking, solving, helpfulness..etc). The way I see it is that threads are bumped to get attention by the contributors. Helpfulness and Solutions are important for users searching for answers. By bumping threads that don't require further attention from Contributors we are pushing down threads that do. Any other take on this?

NoahSUMO 527 posts

June 22, 2012, 4:06:06 AM PDT

I agree with all those thoughts Ibai. I've been trying to file a bug like that for a long time but only realized those other actions other than editing threads (or editing posts in a thread) caused threads to jump to the top of the page 1 Questions index.

I'll test in stage to see what certain actions in threads cause them to be bumped. From what I can tell, everything except voting and unsolving actions bump threads. I could be wrong on the last 2 so I'll try to test them.

I agree with all those thoughts Ibai. I've been trying to file a bug like that for a long time but only realized those other actions other than editing threads (or editing posts in a thread) caused threads to jump to the top of the page 1 Questions index. I'll test in stage to see what certain actions in threads cause them to be bumped. From what I can tell, everything except voting and unsolving actions bump threads. I could be wrong on the last 2 so I'll try to test them.

John99 3665 posts

June 23, 2012, 5:40:58 AM PDT

Ibai said

... The way I see it is that threads are bumped to get attention by the contributors. Helpfulness and Solutions are important for users searching for answers. By bumping threads that don't require further attention from Contributors we are pushing down threads that do. Any other take on this?

Another take:

The thread order is not important to contributors they use filters.

The thread order is important to other casual forum visitors. Therefore in my opinion: if for instance a thread has been very high voted, or had a solution confirmed, it is worth bumping.

My understanding of your post /forums/contributors/708461 on filters is that twice as many users as contributors view the forum.

''Ibai [[#post-47426|said]]'' <blockquote> ... The way I see it is that threads are bumped to get attention by the contributors. Helpfulness and Solutions are important for users searching for answers. By bumping threads that don't require further attention from Contributors we are pushing down threads that do. Any other take on this? </blockquote> Another take: The thread order is not important to contributors they use filters. The thread order is important to other casual forum visitors. Therefore in my opinion: if for instance a thread has been very high voted, or had a solution confirmed, it is worth bumping. My understanding of your post [/forums/contributors/708461] on filters is that twice as many users as contributors view the forum.

Chris Ilias 2448 posts

June 23, 2012, 11:41:28 AM PDT

John99 said

The thread order is not important to contributors they use filters.

Speak for yourself. :)

''John99 [[#post-47462|said]]'' <blockquote> The thread order is not important to contributors they use filters. </blockquote> Speak for yourself. :)

John99 3665 posts

June 23, 2012, 9:50:14 PM PDT

Chris,
I tend to use the filters, and although I speak for myself, that seems to be exactly what Ibai's metrics show in the post I linked to.

Chris, I tend to use the filters, and although I speak for myself, that seems to be exactly what Ibai's metrics show in the [https://support.mozilla.org/forums/contributors/708461 post] I linked to.

Chris Ilias 2448 posts

June 24, 2012, 5:17:03 AM PDT

Could you point me to what metric you're referring to? The only place where he mentions contributors is the suspicion that 34% of people who use filters are contributors. Is there something I'm missing?

Could you point me to what metric you're referring to? The only place where he mentions contributors is the suspicion that 34% '''of people who use filters''' are contributors. Is there something I'm missing?

John99 3665 posts

June 24, 2012, 6:03:52 AM PDT

Hi Again Chris,

So my understanding is there is a suspicion 100 - 34 = 66% are the casual users or none contributors; that is close to double the 34% presumed to be contributors.

If a mod or someone else wants to review all post as they change, and not use a filter that is fine, and easily done. If a change has been made; be it the thread being locked or edited, that is a change, and maybe it is something some users/contributors will want to have the option of seeing,by virtue ofthe thread bumping up.

I can see that if a thread is either locked due to: abuse, being an accidental duplicate, or locked automatically due to inaction, it is inappropriate to bump that thread, but in many other circumstances maybe it is appropriate.

If a contributor is trying to answer a thread, then presumably the interesting threads are the ones either unanswered or unsolved, along with follow ups on my contributions. We have filters for precisely such cases and it would not surprise me if other contributors also use those filters.

In my opinion things do not look too bad as they are, but sure discuss and consider changing it.

Lets remember that although we as contributors look at it as a forum, and may try to abstract information, management view it more as a question and answer system and present it in that manner to the end user. Even suggesting (iirc) that from a UX point of view the email should be self contained and provide the answer without the user needing to see the thread involved.

John

Hi Again Chris, So my understanding is there is a suspicion 100 - 34 = 66% are the casual users or none contributors; that is close to double the 34% presumed to be contributors. If a mod or someone else wants to review all post as they change, and not use a filter that is fine, and easily done. If a change has been made; be it the thread being locked or edited, that is a change, and maybe it is something some users/contributors will want to have the option of seeing,by virtue ofthe thread bumping up. I can see that if a thread is either locked due to: abuse, being an accidental duplicate, or locked automatically due to inaction, it is inappropriate to bump that thread, but in many other circumstances maybe it is appropriate. If a contributor is trying to answer a thread, then presumably the interesting threads are the ones either unanswered or unsolved, along with follow ups on my contributions. We have filters for precisely such cases and it would not surprise me if other contributors also use those filters. In my opinion things do not look too bad as they are, but sure discuss and consider changing it. Lets remember that although we as contributors look at it as a forum, and may try to abstract information, management view it more as a question and answer system and present it in that manner to the end user. Even suggesting (iirc) that from a UX point of view the email should be self contained and provide the answer without the user needing to see the thread involved. John

Chris Ilias 2448 posts

June 25, 2012, 8:21:19 AM PDT

John99 said

So my understanding is there is a suspicion 100 - 34 = 66% are the casual users or none contributors; that is close to double the 34% presumed to be contributors.

What I'm saying is that contributors who don't use filters are not counted in that 100. There are some contributors who use filters, but we don't know what percentage of total contributors. We don't know if it's all contributors (I don't use filters), most, or a small minority, so we don't have the data to say "thread order is not important to contributors".

To illustrate with numbers hypothetically: Let's say there are 1000 forum posters
- 800 users, 200 contributors
- of that 1000, 100 use filters
--- 66 of that 100 are users
--- 34 of that 100 are contributors

So that would mean the stats in Ibai's post are correct, but only 34 of 200 contributors use filters.

NOTE: those numbers are hypothetical. I'm just illustrating how the metrics in Ibai's post don't indicate if thread order is important to contributors.

''John99 [[#post-47478|said]]'' <blockquote> So my understanding is there is a suspicion 100 - 34 = 66% are the casual users or none contributors; that is close to double the 34% presumed to be contributors. </blockquote> What I'm saying is that contributors who don't use filters are not counted in that 100. There are ''some'' contributors who use filters, but we don't know what percentage of total contributors. We don't know if it's all contributors (I don't use filters), most, or a small minority, so we don't have the data to say "thread order is not important to contributors". To illustrate with numbers hypothetically: Let's say there are 1000 forum posters - 800 users, 200 contributors - of that 1000, 100 use filters --- 66 of that 100 are users --- 34 of that 100 are contributors So that would mean the stats in Ibai's post are correct, but only 34 of 200 contributors use filters. '''NOTE: those numbers are hypothetical. I'm just illustrating how the metrics in Ibai's post don't indicate if thread order is important to contributors.'''

John99 3665 posts

June 30, 2012, 7:11:25 PM PDT

ok Chris, point taken.

That also led me to thinking about the apparent very large number of visitors that do not interact at all but will see the default option with no filters /forums/contributors/708461#post-47534

I am now seeing a very large number of older locked posts, not sure if this is because we are locking a lot of threads on request/review or if there is in fact something automated; that I have missed; doing this.

ok Chris, point taken. That also led me to thinking about the apparent very large number of visitors that do not interact at all but will see the default option with no filters [/forums/contributors/708461#post-47534] I am now seeing a very large number of older locked posts, not sure if this is because we are locking a lot of threads on request/review or if there is in fact something automated; that I have missed; doing this.

Chris Ilias 2448 posts

July 1, 2012, 12:22:01 AM PDT

It's automated. Here's the bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=680924

AliceWyman 6327 posts

July 1, 2012, 12:43:46 AM PDT

Chris_Ilias said

It's automated. Here's the bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=680924

Looks like threads for support questions created more than 180 days ago are now locked even though they have recent replies. I added a comment on that in the "Locking old Support Threads" discussion:

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/forums/contributors/708115?page=4#post-47691

''Chris_Ilias [[#post-47689|said]]'' <blockquote> It's automated. Here's the bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=680924 </blockquote> Looks like threads for support questions ''created more than 180 days ago'' are now locked even though they have recent replies. I added a comment on that in the "Locking old Support Threads" discussion: *https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/forums/contributors/708115?page=4#post-47691

Modified by AliceWyman on July 1, 2012, 1:01:39 AM PDT

Explore by product

Explore by topic

Browse by product

Browse all forum threads by topic

Get help with

Search Support

Moderator locked threads - tag removal, is that wise