bump rule in FS/FT, better wording

[CU]

I took "No excessive bumping of your own thread. No more than once every 4 hours." to mean don't just comment and say Bump, or To the Top, etc. And, it was OK to respond to a question by posting the answer in your thread before the 4 hour time limit. That was wrong, and I accept my warning. No problem with that. But shouldn't it be worded better to say you cannot post a response to your thread no matter what. You can PM people or edit your original post as neither bump you post, but under no circumstance can you respond to your post before 4 hours.

Just trying to keep people from making the same mistake I did and wrongfully bumping other people off the front page. Thanks.

 

[ahenkel]

Or perhaps If someone responds to a question in their FS/FT thread say within 15 minutes of the question being asked it would not count against the bump rule.

 

[Evadman]

The rule says 'No more than once every 4 hours.' not 'No more than once every 4 hours unless you are responding to someone'.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Just edit your original post to include the info they are requesting.

 

[Gillbot]

The rule says 'No more than once every 4 hours.' not 'No more than once every 4 hours unless you are responding to someone'.

Sounds reasonable to me. What do I know though.

 

[CU]

The rule says 'No more than once every 4 hours.' not 'No more than once every 4 hours unless you are responding to someone'.

The rule says 'No more than once every 4 hours.' not 'No more than once every 4 hours which includes responding to someone. Maybe not the best working, but my point is if you don't know editing will not bump a post. The rules don't say how to respond so that everyone will see the answer. Making some people think a response maybe an exception to the rule.

Just edit your original post to include the info they are requesting.

Yes, I know that now. After a mod told me but, before that I had never paid any attention to whether an edit bumped a thread. I just assumed it would bump it like a post. So, I posted the answer.

 

[TwiceOver]

I would add to the rule that users should be banned permanently for bumping their thread just to say everything is sold. What a useless bump.

 

[Gillbot]

I would add to the rule that users should be banned permanently for bumping their thread just to say everything is sold. What a useless bump.

Add to that the "Thread Closed" bump

 

[slag]

I disagree.. no wait, I _strenuously_ disagree with this rule. I think replies to questions are not bumps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_(Internet)
"To bump a thread on an internet forum is to post a reply to it purely in order to raise the thread's profile. This will typically return it to the top of the list of active threads."

A reply to a user's question is not a bump because it is not made to purely raise the thread's profile. It is there to provide clarification and/or simplify meaning to the post. Sure, the post can be edited with this information, but it a lot less personal and doesn't show the response to the specific question. A reply is cleaner and shows you acknowledge the post for information and are replying specifically to it.

 

[Soundmanred]

Edit post, PM user, that's what I've always done.

 

[Gillbot]

Edit post, PM user, that's what I've always done.

That's what 99.9% of the people do. The rest cry about the rules since they are unfairly targeted. D: