Thank you for pointing this out, Hermann.

I think it should be solved now.

On some forum’s, new members are only allowed to post reactions (and revive an old thread) after they have introduced themselves properly in a “introduce yourself” sub-forum.
That could prevent the issue you described?

Having been a moderator of two forums myself, I appreciate your work and thank you.

Regarding new rules, I believe in common sense and therefore I think if changes can be nipped in the bud due to new possible threats, I would introduce them.

Tricky.

I suppose that a new visitor to the forum could well legitimately find the information on old threads very interesting and like to post a question as a result.

However, maybe in practice this is rare.

On balance, if it keeps the bots at bay, seems a reasonably initial restriction.

The spammers do seem to post on old threads, so it's a rule likely to catch them

I had wondered about that new posting. It is rare to see someone come on, say they are new and demand people welcome them with no additional information. The fact they never responded to a question as to what brought them here certainly indicated something was fishy.

I think the suggested solution to reduce spamming seems reasonable and should have minimal impact on real forum members so I'm fine with it.

Seems a reasonable response.

I can't seem to understand the point of spammers. What do they hope to achieve?

Not an "issue", more a feature request: would it be possible to add a dark mode/theme as an option to be able to choose between the fresh white, or a less visually bright presentation? If it's there already I couldn't find it...

tokenbrit wrote: ↑2023-05-02 14:31 Not an "issue", more a feature request: would it be possible to add a dark mode/theme as an option to be able to choose between the fresh white, or a less visually bright presentation? If it's there already I couldn't find it...

+1

Thank you for the suggestion!

I currently don't know whether this is possible without making a whole new theme with inverted colours. But I will have a look around and see if anyone else has dived into this.

lejonklou wrote: ↑2023-05-04 00:08 Thank you for the suggestion!

I currently don't know whether this is possible without making a whole new theme with inverted colours. But I will have a look around and see if anyone else has dived into this.

Only if it's simple - I don't want to incur the wrath of anyone on the waiting list by delaying TM3s, etc... : o

A dark theme would be a nice to have, not a priority request in any way. I thought/hoped it might be as easy as a switch or setting - if it's complicated or an effort that takes away from development & production, then please don't hesitate to defer the request.

tokenbrit wrote: ↑2023-05-04 13:54 Only if it's simple - I don't want to incur the wrath of anyone on the waiting list by delaying TM3s, etc... : o
A dark theme would be a nice to have, not a priority request in any way. I thought/hoped it might be as easy as a switch or setting - if it's complicated or an effort that takes away from development & production, then please don't hesitate to defer the request.

Agree completely :)

Should we have 'like' or 'unlike' buttons?

quinn_t wrote: ↑2023-07-02 19:15 Should we have 'like' or 'unlike' buttons?

Maybe, but it could result in people fishing for ‘likes’ instead of telling their honest opinions. And will we continue posting constructive criticism if there's a risk of getting an ‘unlike’?

I prefer it as things are. Keeps it simple and straight forward. Sometimes members copy a section of text and agree with it or respond with "+1" so there are still ways of doing something similar to a 'like'.

Charlie1 wrote: ↑2023-07-03 08:51 I prefer it as things are. Keeps it simple and straight forward. Sometimes members copy a section of text and agree with it or respond with "+1" so there are still ways of doing something similar to a 'like'.

+1

Charlie1 wrote: ↑2023-07-03 08:51 I prefer it as things are. Keeps it simple and straight forward. Sometimes members copy a section of text and agree with it or respond with "+1" so there are still ways of doing something similar to a 'like'.

+1

quinn_t wrote: ↑2023-07-03 20:37

Charlie1 wrote: ↑2023-07-03 08:51 I prefer it as things are. Keeps it simple and straight forward. Sometimes members copy a section of text and agree with it or respond with "+1" so there are still ways of doing something similar to a 'like'.

+1

I agree.

I agree with ThomasOK and Charlie1 and quinn_t. :-)

Why not keep it simple and only allow moderators to unlock a locked thread?

Any choice for a period of inactivity is a bit arbitrary, but about 3 months, with the exception of long running threads like the playground.

Anyone should be able to read locked threads, so no need for separate rules for recent members.

If someone wants to revive a locked thread, they can do so by creating a new thread and linking to the original.

Threads old and new are a very valuable resource for new or prospective members, and it would be a great shame to prevent anyone from reading them.