Question about "Excessive Bumping"

[XB]

I had this thread locked recently, for excessive bumping.

What exactly is your definition of "excessive bumping"? I've looked around, and found that most people say no more than 3 bumps per day is A-OK. Well, when looking at my locked thread, I found that there were no more than 3 bumps during any 24 hour period.

Are the Moderators pulling this stuff out of thin air, or is "excessive bumping" actually defined somewhere?

 

[shawnmos]

must have been the mean mod!

 

[duragezic]

Yes I'm not sure about that one. Most of them were 10-12 hours between bumps. Shoulda seen a FS/FT thread today the guy was bumping every 15 minutes I politely PM'ed him about it.

Possibly the mod didn't notice the times or dates real close.

 

[Ashpool]

Looks like the Mods were a little ignorant about this one. I'd like to hear their side of the argument (if they have one).

 

[XB]

Thanks for the support guys. I appreciate it.

 

[Ashpool]

Still no answer.

XB, maybe if you put "Question To Mods" in the title, you'd get a quicker response.

 

[Ashpool]

Here's some more stuff I thought you'd find interesting.

Check out this thread.

This person had 6+ bumps in a 24 hour period, versus XB's 3 bumps within the same 24 hour time frame.

Yet XB's thread is locked, and his isn't?

Mods, do you even care about doing your jobs to a certain degree of fairness or consistency? I'm sure you guys make some mistakes (we're all human), but I don't see any justification behind your actions in this situation.

 

[Gorgonzola]

they prolly just saw all the bumps and locked it, and forgot to look at the timestamp. if you have a thread like that one (with something for sale) a good idea to makesure it will be noticed is to add a link to that thread to your sig, that way whenever you post people will see it, and if they're interested they can click it.

i dont think that would upset anyone.

 

[illusionm8]

that definately should not have been locked. i dont know where this rule suddenly came from "excessive bumping". i think it began once bonkers was banned. thats when people actually started bringing it up and the mods decided to start watching for it.

 

[Scrapster]

free bump for ya.

 

[Hanpan]

I think the reason the mods got mad at bonkers was he would pm others to ask them to bump his threads.

 

[kerrdawg]

excuse me for beeing stupid but what is bumping?

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

Replying in a thread "bumps" it back up to the top (first page).

 

[blackhawk]

If there's a rule, publish it. I dont understand the lock either.

 

[MrAnderson]

Locking for something that is not posted in the TRADING RULES seems completely ludicrous to me. You can't enforce something if there is no policy written out for it....

:|

PS- XB, I can't believe they locked yours of all people, it was barely over a bump per day!

 

[buck]

<< You can't enforce something if there is no policy written out for it.... >>


Uhhh, yes they can. They cant have a specific rule for everything. I agree that it is confusing but there are too many rules to list. I hope they lay out guidelines for the bumping issue, and I think that in most cases they have done an A+ job. Everyone is human,.......

Well, maybe not the mean mod, but thats a different story.

 

[AnandTech Moderator]

The threads in question were locked because there were bumps in less than one hour. That's excessive.

We are discussing a policy and will come to a decision shortly. In the meantime, it is a matter of discretion. My discretion is that bumping more than three times in one day and less than 2 hours apart is excessive. Since we have no written rule at present, I am a little more lax and simply locking those with 4 or bumps in a day, or only an hour apart. When we decide a rule, we'll all follow it.

I agree with your sentiments about needing to spell out our policies. We are in the process now. In the meantime, however, this doesn't mean that excessive bumping will be allowed while we discuss it.

To my knowledge, nobody has been banned for excessive bumping. If you think about it, having to start your thread over is not exactly a high price to pay.

I hope that explains where we are to date. Thanks to all for expressing yourselves, and as always, special thanks to the little psuedo-lawyers whose life's ambition is to nitpick for our inconsistencies. You make our job special.

 

[Lucky]

At first glance, I thought you were right too. But look at the last timestamp. I still dont think it should have been locked, as *one* excessive bump over the course of many spaced out is, IMO, not that bad, but....you broke the &quot;rules&quot;, so...



Original PostSaturday, March 10, 2001 4:45 PM
1st bumpSaturday, March 10, 2001 8:20 PM (nearly 4 hours later)
2nd bumpSunday, March 11, 2001 2:10 AM (The next day, and nearly 6 hours later)
3rd bumpSunday, March 11, 2001 9:14 PM (17 hours after the 2nd, and more 28 hours after the original post)
4th bumpMonday, March 12, 2001 12:52 AM (2 1/2 after the last bump)
5th BumpMonday, March 12, 2001 1:46 PM (Here is apparentely where the mod decided to enforce the rule. This bump was 54 minutes after the last one.)



^

 

[MrAnderson]

but there are too many rules to list

Did the writers of the Constitution say this? I'm not saying that this board is to that level but it seems to me a silly thing to say...

 

[Viper GTS]

4th bumpMonday, March 12, 2001 12:52 AM (2 1/2 after the last bump)
5th BumpMonday, March 12, 2001 1:46 PM (Here is apparentely where the mod decided to enforce the rule. This bump was 54 minutes after the last one.)

Actually, that's 12 hours &amp; 54 minutes later.

Viper GTS

Thanks, Viper. You caught my mistake. I always double check the times before I lock, but in this case I apparently got confused about the span of these bumps.

Hopefully, we will come out with our written policy soon and the need to lock will diminish.

Rather than unlock the thread, I'm going to just let him start a new one with my apologies.