Bumping topics: what should the rule be?

richard@imutual
Posts: 6163
Joined: Wed Jun 23 2010 10:19am
Sharing: 2stars.png
Has thanked: 1880 times
Been thanked: 4097 times
Contact:

Bumping topics: what should the rule be?

Post by richard@imutual » Wed Aug 29 2012 5:00pm

Something that seems to have become contentious in a couple of recent threads is when someone 'bumps' a topic - i.e. replies to an inactive topic with the main purpose of bringing it back to people's attention, rather than adding any significant new content

In both cases the 'bump'-ers have been acting selflessly to promote charitable causes and also they haven't broken any forum rules. But I can see that, at times, this kind of activity can be annoying for some people. As we want to maintain a harmonious forum,
perhaps we do need some kind of agreed rule re: bumping in case this becomes a means of spamming or ongoing arguments and bad feeling.

What does everyone think? What would be an appropriate rule (if any)?

Oggy
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Jul 01 2010 7:28pm
Has thanked: 372 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: Bumping topics: what should the rule be?

Post by Oggy » Wed Aug 29 2012 5:11pm

Bump! :angel: :mrgreen:
Thanked by: Mel, kevinchess1

zulu17
Posts: 457
Joined: Thu Jul 01 2010 1:36pm
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 200 times
Contact:

Re: Bumping topics: what should the rule be?

Post by zulu17 » Wed Aug 29 2012 5:25pm

Personally I don't think we need a rule at this time.

First it was good of EVF to bring the Persimmon promotion to the forum -

Had the good cause been promoted in the thread that it has now been moved to the situation we are now in wouldn't have arisen. There would have been a few message of support added but as the number of threads per day is low there would not have been the need to bump it to the top as was the case in the very active Freebies thread.

Put this episode down to experience and move on.

Now I think we ought to bump blood donation thread.
Thanked by: kevinchess1

richard@imutual
Posts: 6163
Joined: Wed Jun 23 2010 10:19am
Sharing: 2stars.png
Has thanked: 1880 times
Been thanked: 4097 times
Contact:

Re: Bumping topics: what should the rule be?

Post by richard@imutual » Wed Aug 29 2012 6:06pm

For those keen to give ongoing promotion to a 'good cause' topic, you always have the option of putting a link to said topic in your signature. The "Give blood" thread serves as a good example.

Bruce
Posts: 772
Joined: Tue Jun 29 2010 1:22pm
Sharing: 2stars.png
Has thanked: 258 times
Been thanked: 346 times
Contact:

Re: Bumping topics: what should the rule be?

Post by Bruce » Wed Aug 29 2012 6:37pm

On another forum I use, replies by the most recent author are simply appended to the old message. The thread isn't raised up the forum.

The new message is identified with "----new message below----"

Sarah
Posts: 5829
Joined: Sat Jun 26 2010 10:01am
Has thanked: 432 times
Been thanked: 4414 times
Contact:

Re: Bumping topics: what should the rule be?

Post by Sarah » Wed Aug 29 2012 6:53pm

I think a line should be drawn somewhere - bumping an offer that's back on again, or with some other piece of related news is helpful, but bumping the same set of topics every day is over-the-top. If the purpose is to provide daily reminders, then that's a separate requirement and could be implemented another way, without disrupting a discussion forum.

Squire
Posts: 789
Joined: Sat Jul 23 2011 4:48pm
Has thanked: 946 times
Been thanked: 391 times
Contact:

Re: Bumping topics: what should the rule be?

Post by Squire » Wed Aug 29 2012 7:05pm

richard@imutual wrote:For those keen to give ongoing promotion to a 'good cause' topic, you always have the option of putting a link to said topic in your signature. The "Give blood" thread serves as a good example.
Now I know I am old.

I could have sworn (as you can see my Blog if you look around a bit, but I digress...) that we all voted and narrowly (and upsettingly for some) agreed no signatures with links, possibly no signatures at all.

I have taken mine out entirely in response.

But then I am a pensioner so no doubt getting forgetful.

So here are some suggestions:

Some forums have the ability to let members FLAG articles.

Some complex polynomial function involving number of flags that are classified as BUMP/spam per hour combined with the absolute number of flags, in a weighted average of some sort. (So a blatent article that irritates 10, 20, 30, (who decides how many) members in 5 minutes gets killed pending investigation say, or one that gets 20 votes as obnoxious, spam, bump, etc in TOTAL over any time span, gets killed, just for example). The article, not the person writing it!

Or just have some admins that are trustworthy and fair minded to police the forums as volunteers.

That counts me out, so I am not suggesting this to get a job, I already turned one Admin post down somewhere else, as I do not think I can do the job at all without upsetting everyone at some time or other.

Maybe some restriction on number of posts in a thread to stop repeated bumps.

Filter out posts using a script that detects cheeky bar stewards just saying "BUMP".

(Would be interesting to see if the scripts backdate when run and remove this post, so making subsequent posts mentioning it, orphaned. But I digress, yet again...)

Posts with just smileys in, delete.

Posts with non English, delete (for example if the lazy clump-of-grass just types kwiberfgvwberfgvbwf like wot I just did).

Posts with too few words (although who decides how few?) I waffle on a lot, but sometimes even I can precis a situation in a few short sharp acerbic words that get the result intended. No need for dozens of words where a few work better.

Sometimes bringing a post to the fore, might be useful, so some posts might get "told off" unjustly. But before someone suggests a trial-by-jury, a bit like the missing commission process that we already have, honestly, the time that would be spent on a similar process is not worth it for Bumping.

Ultimately if Richard thinks a person is bumping for the wrong reasons, then presumably every imutual member supports him in taking the action only an Admnin can take, including suspending the forum access (not saying delete the account entirely so they lose their earnings unpaid).

Just some ideas for the more sensble members to cogitate on, and improve.

And if I am one of the "bumpers", let me know.

Squire
Posts: 789
Joined: Sat Jul 23 2011 4:48pm
Has thanked: 946 times
Been thanked: 391 times
Contact:

Re: Bumping topics: what should the rule be?

Post by Squire » Wed Aug 29 2012 7:08pm

bump!!! (I just could not resist it).

Richard Frost
Posts: 13232
Joined: Tue Jun 29 2010 8:14pm
Location: The Isle of Dreams
Has thanked: 2874 times
Been thanked: 6862 times

Re: Bumping topics: what should the rule be?

Post by Richard Frost » Wed Aug 29 2012 7:09pm

I do not see a major need to change. Perhaps create a separate forum for good causes!
Thanked by: Kelantan

dorisifa
Posts: 754
Joined: Tue Jun 29 2010 10:23pm
Has thanked: 285 times
Been thanked: 815 times
Contact:

Re: Bumping topics: what should the rule be?

Post by dorisifa » Wed Aug 29 2012 7:15pm

Drahcir wrote:Perhaps create a separate forum for good causes!
Only if we can have a forum for bad causes as well.
https://www.conservatives.com/Donate.aspx
Thanked by: Oggy, Mel, Eurovisionfan, uglysteve
But apart from that Mrs Lincoln how was the play?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests