I routinely watch for threads that have been unanswered for some time. Recently a rule has been implemented to close threads older than 3 months, which is rather restrictive, because now the last few pages of the unanswered threads section cannot be replied upon, but more importantly eliminates the ability to add to threads with new information even if they are a little bit older. Can we institutionalise the rule to close threads with a larger life time, say from 3 months to 3 years?
3 months is a little less...
Apologies for not understanding your point. Less than what?
I was saying the same what you said, it should be increased from 3 months...
Strictly speaking, the title of my thread is even incorrect, as it should read "All threads closed after 3 months" as opposed to just the unanswered ones.
People bump 3-year-old threads to add unrelated problems more often than a solution from what I see.
Thread are automatically closed (at this time) after 6 months, as I recall.
---------- Post updated at 19:58 ---------- Previous update was at 19:55 ----------
Update:
In the current configuration, threads older than 90 days are automatically closed.
Thanks for your responses, but the maturity of 3 months seems more like a symptom of frustration than something which was debated among the forum members and collectively arrived at.
In addition, it is impossible to rate closed threads, which was originally a feature to improve Google rankings of threads. So with the 3-month-rule we are compromising the ability to improve threads in 2 ways.
As I recall, the decision to close threads after three months was made after discussions within the forum advisory team, which is a fairly large user group.
Are you requesting that this team revisit this decision?
---------- Post updated at 20:47 ---------- Previous update was at 12:29 ----------
I just checked, and I did not have any trouble at all rating a closed thread.
Our thinking is that if you want to reference a thread that is closed, simply start a new thread and cut-and-paste the reference thread and start a new one 
Neo, that's possibly not a valid test, as an admin you can also reply to closed threads.
I am now just a registered user. When I try to rate a closed thread I get "error on page".
Users not being able to rate closed threads is a problem that we should try to address as long as there are such things as "closed threads". Closed threads need to work correctly. I not sure that the rating problem is strong argument against closing threads 3 months old. We need a better fix.
If a thread has been open for three months without an answer, it seems a little unlikely that answer is forthcoming. And the fact that the thread was closed unanswered is an invitation to post the question again. Anyone posting a question for the second time should try to add some more details or something like that. The particular case of closing an unanswered 3-month old question does not worry me very much.
The general question of whether or not to close old threads has arguments on both sides. But if you really want to respond to an old thread, you can start a new thread with a link to the old thread. That is almost the same thing or at least a workable substitute.
After poking around the net, it appears that users not being able to rate closed threads is a "feature" of vBulletin.
To change it we would need to mod the code base. I don't see any compelling reasons why users should not be able to rate closed threads. Just the opposite, I think rating closed threads is important.
I want to thank figaro for taking the time to point this out
---------- Post updated at 02:02 ---------- Previous update was at 01:38 ----------
OK, I think I fixed the error (there was an error in the template).
However, there is still the rating issue to consider...
---------- Post updated at 02:17 ---------- Previous update was at 02:02 ----------
OK, as a temporary fix (I don't see any major issues, please let me know if you do), I commented out the part of threadrate.php that checks to see if the thread is closed and throws an error if it is closed.
I checked as a registered user (not admin) and was able to rate a thread.
---------- Post updated at 02:32 ---------- Previous update was at 02:17 ----------
Actually, I don't recall the issue being of "frustration" as much as the desire by the advisory team for users to start new threads (and reference old ones) versus replying to old stale threads and zombies.
Basically, I think the concensus was, that for older threads, a poster should start a new thread and simply cut-and-paste a link back to reference that thread, if they wish.
PS: Please note that I think I have fixed the "rating closed thread issue" and you should be able to rate closed threads now.
Have we addressed your concerns? Are you OK with where we are now with your original post?
I just rated a closed thread.
I don't see any problem with your patch and I agree that users should be able to rate closed threads.
GREAT! Thanks for checking!
Thanks all for looking after this so promptly. As regards Neo's question: the unanswered threads link could show only 15 pages instead of 20. That will - in probably well over 95% of the cases - prevent users reaching a page full of unanswered threads that they cannot respond to.
Hey fig!
Maybe we should ask the other folks what they think?
For example, should we increase the time for our auto-closing process to 4 months? 5 months? 6 months?
Hi.
FWIW: the OP apparently can open / close threads. Under Thread Tools menu, there is a bullet list to open closed threads and vice versa. I was able to open / close a very old thread that I had started, but not one to which I had merely posted.
This feature appears to be common in (some) forum software -- it was a thread at LF last week ... cheers, drl
Yes, I noticed that on many sites these days, comments on news articles and blog posts are stopped after a certain number or posts or a certain time. Of course, some of those news sites etc have controversial topics (politics, etc) so they have many comments, wars, insults, etc.
Here, we admins will implement what is best for the site, the members and those who visit from search referrals in search of an answer to a question or problem.
Just like we don't write in the back of a book written by others, we reference that knowledge in a new book or paper or article. Many of us feel the same way about old threads. They can be referenced if closed, and a new thread started.
So far, the concensus from our admins, mods and members are that closing threads after three months is important . If there is a concensus to change it, we will.
For me, I am so used to referencing other URLs in a post, that the point is moot for me; and am interested in what others think serves best.