Bumping topics: what should the rule be?

richard@imutual
Posts: 4414
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 10:19 am
Sharing: 3stars.png
Has thanked: 1769 times
Been thanked: 3558 times
Contact:

Bumping topics: what should the rule be?

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

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: 791
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 7:28 pm
Has thanked: 346 times
Been thanked: 307 times
Contact:

Re: Bumping topics: what should the rule be?

Post by Oggy » Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:11 pm

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

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

Re: Bumping topics: what should the rule be?

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

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: 4414
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 10:19 am
Sharing: 3stars.png
Has thanked: 1769 times
Been thanked: 3558 times
Contact:

Re: Bumping topics: what should the rule be?

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

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: 750
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:22 pm
Sharing: 1star.png
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 331 times
Contact:

Re: Bumping topics: what should the rule be?

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

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: 2808
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 10:01 am
Has thanked: 215 times
Been thanked: 1965 times
Contact:

Re: Bumping topics: what should the rule be?

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

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 4:48 pm
Has thanked: 946 times
Been thanked: 391 times
Contact:

Re: Bumping topics: what should the rule be?

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

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 4:48 pm
Has thanked: 946 times
Been thanked: 391 times
Contact:

Re: Bumping topics: what should the rule be?

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

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

Richard Frost
Posts: 10786
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:14 pm
Location: The Isle of Dreams
Has thanked: 2234 times
Been thanked: 5171 times
Contact:

Re: Bumping topics: what should the rule be?

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

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

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

Re: Bumping topics: what should the rule be?

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

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 0 guests