Are all threads deleted eventually unless pinned?

[Citizen Cook]

Just wondering how long Steam typically holds discussion threads in memory and why.
One the one hand the rules discourage making new threads about questions or topics already asked/covered, but then threatens to ban users for resurrecting old threads Steam holds in memory.

[niralamart000]

no idea, i don't see anything in rules and guidelines

[BJWyler]

Well, based on some of the useless necros I have seen, threads are kept around for at least 10 years or more.

The key is to use a bit of common sense when posting. Old threads can provide a bit of good information, but there's no need to post in a thread just because you can. Generally speaking, if a subject has not had an active thread in the last couple of months, creating a new thread is acceptable - as long as something new is brought to the table. If it's just a rehashing of what is already in the old threads, then not posting anything is the proper thing to do, either as a new topic or in one of the old threads.

[DarkCrystalMethod]

The rules are unclear so its a wobbler.
And certain mods have made up their minds which one is acceptable and punish the other type.
Threads aren't deleted simply based on age, but bump an old thread and they'll delete it no matter what "to avoid confusion".

[Citizen Cook]

Originally posted by DarkCrystalMethod:

The rules are unclear so its a wobbler.
And certain mods have made up their minds which one is acceptable and punish the other type.
Threads aren't deleted simply based on age, but bump an old thread and they'll delete it no matter what "to avoid confusion".

I did a search once on a topic, found an old post discussing what I was interested, wrote a comment and got banned. I think the topic was 3 years old. The others I found were even older. I think the one I posted in was the newest I found and I still got banned.

[Komarimaru]

You don't need to post in old threads, that's necroing them. They are kept for research purposes. If you have an issue, you create a new thread, simple really.

[DarkCrystalMethod]

Originally posted by Komarimaru:

You don't need to post in old threads, that's necroing them. They are kept for research purposes. If you have an issue, you create a new thread, simple really.

If old threads(forum admins would set the limit) only had some kind of indicator as to how old was too old to reply(and a mechanism for auto-locking "old" threads if they really didn't want ANY new replies) that would be good. Having no-specific rule(though hinting that the search should be used but punished if you post there, and no specific across all forums age limit on threads that is different for each moderator) it gets real hard to not get punished for getting it wrong.

[Citizen Cook]

Originally posted by Komarimaru:

You don't need to post in old threads, that's necroing them. They are kept for research purposes. If you have an issue, you create a new thread, simple really.

Why are they not automatically locked after a set period of time/inactivity then?

[BJWyler]

Originally posted by Citizen Cook:

Originally posted by Komarimaru:

You don't need to post in old threads, that's necroing them. They are kept for research purposes. If you have an issue, you create a new thread, simple really.

Why are they not automatically locked after a set period of time/inactivity then?

The forums were just not set up that way. Some forums are set up for auto lock of old threads, and I prefer that system.

However, again, just a bit of common sense and etiquette goes a long way. At this point, I think moderation has shown us enough here that necroing posts is frowned upon, so don't do it.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Originally posted by Citizen Cook:

Are all threads deleted eventually unless pinned?

Just wondering how long Steam typically holds discussion threads in memory and why.
One the one hand the rules discourage making new threads about questions or topics already asked/covered, but then threatens to ban users for resurrecting old threads Steam holds in memory.

All threads stay going back to the first day the Community forums went live unless specifically deleted by moderators or the forum no longer exists.

[Citizen Cook]

Originally posted by BJWyler:

Originally posted by Citizen Cook:

Why are they not automatically locked after a set period of time/inactivity then?

The forums were just not set up that way. Some forums are set up for auto lock of old threads, and I prefer that system.

However, again, just a bit of common sense and etiquette goes a long way. At this point, I think moderation has shown us enough here that necroing posts is frowned upon, so don't do it.

How long, that’s what I need to know. Put a date on it. Everyone has their own idea of what is sensible. How else can you explain politics?

[BJWyler]

Originally posted by Citizen Cook:

Originally posted by BJWyler:

The forums were just not set up that way. Some forums are set up for auto lock of old threads, and I prefer that system.

However, again, just a bit of common sense and etiquette goes a long way. At this point, I think moderation has shown us enough here that necroing posts is frowned upon, so don't do it.

How long, that’s what I need to know. Put a date on it. Everyone has their own idea of what is sensible. How else can you explain politics?

It's really all going to depend. You can't put a firm time frame on it. Obviously years old threads would be bad etiquette. A thread that is only a couple of weeks old is fine.

When you get into the gray area, you have to remember that it's not just the age, but the content of the planned post as well. Dropping in a "thanks it worked" post into a two months long dead thread is probably going to be viewed as bad etiquette. Posting a detailed update to a solution to a problem that thread solved two months ago because a change in the game in the interim renders the previous solution invalid is probably going to be acceptable etiquette.

From my personal perspective in being a Forum Warrior since forums first became a thing, necroing a thread that has been dead for at least a few months is bad etiquette. I feel that any thread that's been dead for 6 months or longer should be auto locked, and making a useless post in any thread older than 2-3 months old is bad etiquette.

[Tito Shivan]

Inactive threads are 'archived' which means they're not on the forum thread list IE: right now the suggestions subforum has only 680 'active topics', you can't browse back to the first suggestion there.

Archived threads are still there and can be searched for.

I don't remeber well but I think it takes anywhere between 1-3 months for old threads to be archived.

[🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊]

Steam has a search feature. Search the steam forums for your problem (and do read all of the results) BEFORE making a new thread. There's a pretty good chance that whatever your issue is you will find someone that discussed it before in a thread somewhere that you can read and find your answer. Only AFTER you do all of this THEN you can create a new thread. But only after you're 100% sure your issue wasn't discussed before.

This is how it's supposed to operate. The rules are there because people don't follow this and they just create another thread on something already thoroughly discussed which clutters up the forums with extra useless threads for nothing.

The best example of what I'm talking about is Windows 7 and Steam. People keep making new threads on the exact same topic and it's creating a terrible clutter in the Steam forums right now.