Why 'Ask Fedora' threads get locked (so soon)?

Hey @grass
Thx for your request!
In general topics are closed after 30 days with the last reply.
If the solution hasn’t still worked for you, one of Fedora Ask members can re-open your old post again.


Can I contact the moderation team without sending (and searching for the accounts) individual private messages? Or do I flag the related post (apparently can only be done once, not an option with the thread I linked)?

Well you are talking to me as Fedora Ask Team :wink: If you want your last topic to be re-opened again, let me know :wink:


Oh boy no! :sweat_smile:
If a solution worked in January with Fedora 33, and doesn’t work anymore 6 months later with Fedora 34, IMHO you can’t request to reopen closed posts.
You can simply open a new topic, maybe linking the old one.
The reason why topics are closed a month after an answer was marked as the solution and nobody added something new, is because we want to avoid necroposting. The reason we use the tags is to help people identify to which Fedora release the topic was referred to. And the release cycle of Fedora, you know, is six months…
Take also into account that this forum doesn’t want to be a Question & Answer site. We encourage discussion and interactions.


Thx helping out :wink:

1 Like

Yes, but I since locked posts can’t be edited, users can’t also update them with information (in this case, verify that the Fedora version is 33).

moderators: please edit the post accordingly

But sure, unless anything is changed, I have to create the initial post with more care and create new questions in similar situations in the future. 30 days in any case seems quite low to me.

Then… open a new topic :relaxed:

1 Like

I do find it also pity that we not keep topics open where are repeating questions. This wold help too keep records of changes, and when we once have a good working search engine repeating questions would get a better ranking.

Not everything is changing, some tasks are over several versions the same and should be discuss-able over versions … might be create tags as => Fedora 34 if it is something where is new like gnome 40 from Fedora 34 on.

At least if the owner of the topic wants to reopen and keep a discussion running we should not keep back. Linking older posts make newer posts useless when the linked topic gets removed for some reason.

1 Like

When a new topic is created by linking to an old topic, will the old topic get a link to the new topic automatically?

It looks like that.

1 Like

There is a feature for making a linked follow-up post, but unfortunately it isn’t obvious. See this guide:


Thank you!

Yes, the old topic (or post) get a link to the new topic (or post). But it is somehow not obvious enough (to me) - so it is easily overlooked (by me).

Personally, I’d be fine with having a longer period before the thread is automatically locked, and instead have moderators be more aggressive about splitting threads. But that’s more work for the mods.


Within reason, I think this is a good idea.

Given the volume of posts here and the amount of time it takes to split a topic in Discourse, it doesn’t seem like a significant amount additional work.

But, why would you want that in this case? Doesn’t make much more sense to clarify an old post than have two identical posts with slightly different information?

When someone is searching for a solution, there is a good chance they would hit the older topic first and get bad information given Discourse’s questionable search algorithm.


I’d agree. Now that I know what the links at the bottom of the thread are for, I’ll know to check them out. But if it weren’t for this particular discussion, I wouldn’t have known that. So I’d suggest some label for them, noting them as threads/topics linked to the current topic/thread.


I can say that on Maker Forums we’ve found it to be valuable to keep old posts open. We just split (or… remove spam) and “reset bump date” when we remove posts that don’t belong for any reason. I think leads to less hunting around; fewer twisty mazes of passages all slightly different. But I’m not a mod here, so not binding burdens on others’ backs, just sharing that at least in another context it has been valuable not to close them at all so longer than 30 days might not be crazy. :relaxed:


Can we extend the period of the automatically locking? Let me say maybe 60 days?


But what is the difference between 30 and 60 days? If we have to extend such time, better to extend it to 6/7 months, no? :slightly_smiling_face:

Said that, I don’t really see the problem to open a new topic if another, similar, one was closed months ago because a working solution was provided.

As far as I can say, extending such time, I see the problem that after the original poster has marked an answer as the solution, the following answers will not add very much to the discussion, but they will be “thank you” “works for me too” and so on.

1 Like

Well. They are not identical :sweat_smile:
If I ask: “how to temporarily enable a repository only to update a package” we assume that such repository is installed, and the provided command in the solution works, indeed.
If I ask: “such command doesn’t work anymore” and it pop out that the repository, even if disabled, should be at least installed. Well, IMHO it is not identical.
Then the answer was correct at the time. Obviously it doesn’t work if you have no repository to enable because, probably, you reinstalled the system without adding such repository.
Sorry for my English :frowning:

Yes the point may be that it will cause only short replys “works for me” etc. stuff…

6 months? Well kind of long :smiley: I personally would go for max. 90.