Bumping of threads.

[Jerry Shaw]

I was wondering, what is this boards policy on bumping threads? I read the rules and it said about threads that are very old can't be bumped? I was just wondering, how old is too old, say a thread is a month or two old, is that ok to bump?

Cheers.

[Ðèstîñy]

Bumping threads is a good thing. We encourage the use of the search function, before starting new threads. We would rather the old threads be bumped, instead of having duplicate threads made. Knock yourself out! ;)

[Jerry Shaw]

Awesome! Thank you for the info. :)

[spudracer]

Also, if when you run your search and aren't able to find that thread exactly, eventually, someone will mention it and post a link, at which point, we'll merge the threads.

[Yoda]

Aye. The concept of "bumping" a thread in the context you mention refers more to someone who hasn't gotten the response they want (either in number of replies, answer to a question, etc), and replies again (usually with no posts since their own last post) simply to bring it to people's attention.

Resurrecting older threads with continued discussion, however, is 100% okay, and way better than starting new threads on topics which have already been covered. :)

There are, as always, exceptions, and some forms of bumping are just fine. Neither is a bannable offense or anything, so you probably don't have to worry about it too much. :) I appreciate you checking first, though! That's a lot more thought than most people give to these sorts of things.

[Ðèstîñy]

OK, I thought you meant bumping the thread with new conversation. That's what I meant by it being encouraged. There are quite a few times that new threads are started, when older threads on the same topic already exist. It's best to continue the conversation in the older thread, instead of starting the same topic in a new thread.

I'm getting the feeling you've said, "Bump!" in a few threads, since I posted that, and went to bed.

If so . . . Oops!

[Yoda]

I dunno if there's a set meaning. That's just the way I use it (the negative way), probably because it simply feels like that purpose is more common. The main thing about bumping, for me, is that the word "bump" is all there is, which means it's almost invariably someone who just had a question which hasn't been answered yet. I never think of a simple reply to an older thread as a "bump" because it has a purpose beyond simply bringing that thread to the fore again.

But this is net lingo, so there's no standard definition, or any reason to believe anyone else uses the words the same way I do. :)

[spudracer]

I've seen it thrown around a couple times, most commonly by one person, but never think to much of it and just post something to keep the thread moving. I know there's no malice intended and certainly not trying to just up their post count by posting bump in any dead thread.

After a while I just wish people would realize that posting bump won't always get a thread going again. Sometimes threads have just burnt out and they've got no other direction to go in, nothing wrong with that. Eventually, a new person will come along, search for something (quite possibly keywords in that thread) and poof, the thread is rolling again.

[meatwadsprite]

If you bump my thread I'll bonk your head.

[Jerry Shaw]

OK, I thought you meant bumping the thread with new conversation. That's what I meant by it being encouraged. There are quite a few times that new threads are started, when older threads on the same topic already exist. It's best to continue the conversation in the older thread, instead of starting the same topic in a new thread.

I'm getting the feeling you've said, "Bump!" in a few threads, since I posted that, and went to bed.

If so . . . Oops!

Nah, I've never said ''Bump'' in a thread. I just posted my thoughts on the Movie, Actor or something like that.

[7thson]

**bump**

[Ðèstîñy]

OK, cool!

7thson, stop it!

[7thson]

OK, cool!

7thson, stop it!


Sorry, sorry, but it was such a great setup. :)