Locking and Archiving old forum threads

[Azothath]

Paizo should consider;
• automatically locking treads that are inactive for over five years.
• automatically archiving threads that are inactive for over 7 years.
• automatically delete some data after 7 years.
This will transition data into a compressed searchable archive rather than a large batch transfer and limit data migration with 'necros' and edits. It also limits liability and costs.

[Anguish]

Azothath wrote:

Paizo should consider;

• automatically locking treads that are inactive for over five years.
• automatically archiving threads that are inactive for over 7 years.
• automatically delete some data after 7 years.
This will transition data into a compressed searchable archive rather than a large batch transfer and limit data migration with 'necros' and edits. It also limits liability and costs.

Database response time is not improved by its source being in a "compressed searchable archive" and does not do "large batch transfers".

There is no "data migration" with thread necromancy.

Older posts are already lock, preventing editing after a short window.

Liability is unchanged regardless of if a new post can be placed on an old thread or not. New content is new content, and new content that somehow threatens Paizo is no less threatening for being posted on newer threads than older threads.

Costs do not change just because old content disallows addition.

Databases don't* work the way you seem to think they work.

*Mostly. While the idea of separate live and archival databases is a thing and while hot and cold storage are things, the labour of implementing any kind of automated segregation system would dramatically outweigh any possible savings from storage media given we're talking about a couple decades of text. I don't have statistics - obviously - but odds are pretty good the forum database could potentially fit on a thumb drive. Possibly one from a decade ago.

[Jenner2057]

I'd honestly hate to see any of the older threads locked. As someone who regularly runs (or re-runs) the PF1 APs, the older threads are still a wealth of knowledge. And sometimes it's easier to jump on an already open thread -even if it's 5 or 6 years old- if you need some clarification on something that might be really old.

Plus, the Paizo Messageboards already feel dead enough compared to years ago. I'd hate to see anything done that might squash the participation of any other 1e thread lurkers like myself.

Just my 2 cp of course.
Cheers!

[Cori Marie]

And we already lost a LOT of the forums with product threads and blog threads getting ganked by the store transition.

[Azothath]

as a frequent PF1 poster I feel that concern.

I'm not suggesting changing access but the [redacted] system does have its quirks and should be relatively efficient. I don't want to get too specific.
I don't see the issue with spawning new independent threads to keep things current and track current activity.

Clearly some parts were the Stores and other parts Paizo community. So let's recognize that seperation and that Paizo had to make a choice or was surprised (it happens). You can always retrieve and repost your review.

However, corp needs to consider a data management and transition plan rather than leave it till the last minute. Looking to save on (albeit minor but recurring) costs is something to look at currently if policy can be changed easily.
okay, that's all...