Hi Peter,

Interesting idea.
But, frankly, I think that most (agreed, not all) threads do have people contribute 'warnings' when such seem warranted.

That said, there's certainly merit in looking for some reasonable (standard) way to do what you propose.
It does get a bit "sticky", though... as a "knowledgebase" the stars are where most people will go (well, I do) so really most 'warnings' might remain hidden UNLESS something is done to that starred thread.

Bright people here, so I bet a solution can be found for that.

cheers

>Recently I reopened a thread that was started somewhere in the past, and closed some days later already. The thread offered a solution for a problem. Why did I reopen that thread? Reason one is that I felt some doubt about the validity of the offered solution and, moreover, I was in acute need for a solution of the problem. There were no other threads that dealt (better) with the problem.
>
>But there was another reason, one that comes from a deeper urge inside me. The threads on the UT are a tremendous knowledgebase that is searched by us all whenever we are in need of a solution. Each thread can contain the solution for some problem, but it could also be the start of a bad implementation. Deep down inside I feel motivated to try to improve even old threads. Why? To help those who search the knowledgebase in the future. To prevent that they implement things based on 'wrong' decisions.
>
>But... here is my new doubt: Are the threads worth this effort? Should the threads be regarded a species of 'wiki'? Are they our own wikipedia. or can they not compete with, for example, Steven Black's http://fox.wikis.com? Should they be regarded solely as quick suggestions that may or may not be the ultimate solution, who'll tell?