Would making articles read-only after 6 months be a bad idea?

Submitted by Steve on Mon 11 Jul 2011

Tags: , ,

 

Yes, definitely.  <-> 18%159 votes
Yes, probably.  <-> 28%243 votes
No, not at all.  <-> 39%334 votes
I have no opinion.  <-> 13%117 votes
Total 854 votes

<<< During World IPv6 Day, did you experiance any trouble? What version of the PostgreSQL database do you use? >>>

#
Re: Would making articles read-only after 6 months be a bad idea?
Posted by simonw (84.45.xx.xx) on Wed 13 Jul 2011 at 01:34
[ Send Message | View Weblogs ]
There is a certain amount of "this is the right way to do things now" type comments which I think are useful.

[ Parent ]

#
Re: Would making articles read-only after 6 months be a bad idea?
Posted by Anonymous (108.57.xx.xx) on Wed 13 Jul 2011 at 03:44
Probably, for people who don't log in to post, like me.
I assume that currently, I can comment on an old article and possibly even get a current reply.
How else can one comment here without logging in, and sort of stay on topic?
Thanks Steve for this fine place of usefull information!

[ Parent ]

#
Re: Would making articles read-only after 6 months be a bad idea?
Posted by mcortese (20.142.xx.xx) on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 09:48
[ Send Message | View Weblogs ]
What benefits would it bring?

[ Parent ]

#
Re: Would making articles read-only after 6 months be a bad idea?
Posted by jeremiah (194.237.xx.xx) on Fri 5 Aug 2011 at 14:20
[ Send Message | View Weblogs ]
This question needs to be answered I think. I don't see any benefits to making things read only after $random period of time.

[ Parent ]

#
Re: Would making articles read-only after 6 months be a bad idea?
Posted by Anonymous (88.112.xx.xx) on Tue 16 Aug 2011 at 06:21
I'd assume it reduces server load when the page in question could be converted to static html rather than something which is created by multiple db queries.

[ Parent ]

#
Re: Would making articles read-only after 6 months be a bad idea?
Posted by Anonymous (209.87.xx.xx) on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 18:02
I think this question was phrased in a manner that might be confusing. Usually a poll would ask if you are in favor of something, but this one asks if it's a bad idea, so if you don't want the articles to be read-only you answer "yes". Kind of backwards.

[ Parent ]

#
Re: Would making articles read-only after 6 months be a bad idea?
Posted by Anonymous (91.211.xx.xx) on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 11:15
I think so too.
I was ready to give the wrong answer. =)

[ Parent ]

#
Re: Would making articles read-only after 6 months be a bad idea?
Posted by Anonymous (203.171.xx.xx) on Mon 15 Aug 2011 at 05:22
Agree.

I almost voted No because I don't want articles to be made read-only. The double negative in the question makes the result unreliable.

[ Parent ]

#
Re: Would making articles read-only after 6 months be a bad idea?
Posted by Anonymous (2001:0xx:0xx:0xxx:0xxx:0xxx:xx) on Tue 2 Aug 2011 at 12:35
Not a good idea. In 6 months the article may have become outdated and comments are a great way to let others know the new way to do things.

[ Parent ]

#
Re: Would making articles read-only after 6 months be a bad idea?
Posted by Anonymous (24.161.xx.xx) on Wed 24 Aug 2011 at 20:00
Just because something has been around 6 months doesn't mean it's right. Also, when something has been around that long, there may be a better way of doing it or possibly a problem encountered after an upgrade. Comments and edits can help users troubleshoot! It would be a bad idea to freeze articles after 6 months!

[ Parent ]