Forum:Bumps

''Note:This forum was separated from the over-crowded and long-ignored Forum:Forum and Poll Rules Updates. It used to be its own section within that forum.''

Limit to Bumps
So what should the limit between bumps be set to? Three days? A week? 09:32, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

A week sounds good to me.

Limit between bump? Lolwut 10:07, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree for a limit between bumps. There may be an urgent matter which involves other pages and functions, in which case time is of the essence. What would be useful, however, would be a limit of bumps. If a talk page has, let's say, more than two or three bumps, then it should automatically be considered a matter of non interest and the decision should be taken by those active talkers, at the time.

I think you mean a talk page section. To apply it solely to the talk page could be detrimental. I also think there should be a deadline as to when something can be bumped. Like a month or so. I can think of a recent non-issue that was bumped after about two years of no attention. 10:29, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I mean each section indeed. Sorry if it wasn't clear. Also, I agree with what you said. That should apply in every discussion section, be it forums, talk pages or blogs. If new data come up for a certain matter, then a new section should be established.

There should be no time limit, we just simply shouldn't allow mere bumps. If we force people to actually participate in conversation through posting real content, then we'll get more progress out of all forums and talk pages. 20:25, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Staw, some people bump discussions more than necessary. However, it's understandable if it's an urgent matter. 03:19, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with JSD, people should actually contribute to the discussion instead of just bumping it. 03:24, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

True. Some people just bump for the sake of bumping without actually adding anything productive, or anything at all for that matter. Honestly, I've seen stuff get bumped that really didn't need to get bumped. It was either resolved or we simply had to wait more. There should be a legitimate reason for bringing back an issue, and not just bumping for the sake of tying up loose ends. 03:45, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

I like how Lelouch is the only one that does that. 04:23, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

Do what? 11:01, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

''Staw, some people bump discussions more than necessary. However, it's understandable if it's an urgent matter. 03:19, October 25, 2013 (UTC)''-->This ofc :D--

You are the only one who bumps pages without giving arguments so instead of suggesting this kind of ridiculous things, try to improve your own self. 20:57, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

Lol, no. Yes, I do admit I used to do it, but I've stopped now. However, I've seen other users just bumping it which I find unproductive. Which was why I opened up this discussion. 04:14, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't, bumps are for a reason. That would be by far the most braindead rule on the wiki. 04:23, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Define braindead. 04:32, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

I believe this was posted because of me... "Other users" probably means me seeming as you have expressed your problem with my contributions on talk pages. I only bump discussions which I either have contributed to or plan to if there was more points to discuss.

Anyway what you are asking for is a rule which tells people what they can post. Of course 'bumps' shouldn't be done everyday, this is obvious common sense. Three or two days really should be the absolute minimum but this shouldn't be a rule, it is clear common sense. 17:31, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to bump this one for obvious reasons, so I'l lsay this: Whoever has a solid proposal for a bump rule, let him state it here in detail and accuracy, so we can take it into consideration. Unless, I'll be deactivating this soon.

"Forum or talk page posts made for the sole purpose of making the page appear that it has been updated (practice commonly called "bumping") is not allowed. Posts must contain something relevant to the forum."

Maybe a little re-wording to describe what bumping actually is in a way that's less confusing, but that's my proposal. 20:57, November 4, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that addition. Let's add that. 06:28, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

We'll need some more people to agree with the anti-bump rule before it can be official. 23:27, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone else agree with the anti-bump rule? Here it is again:

"Forum or talk page posts made for the sole purpose of making the page appear that it has been updated (a practice commonly called "bumping") is not allowed. Posts must contain something relevant to the discussion."

This still needs resolution, even after all this time. 15:43, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

There's really no need for a limit. A bump is just used whenever a user believes a subject is dead or forgotten... like this forum. Let's not touch on that irony. If somebody is bumping like once a day then that's just spam. And I agree with the above rule - a 'bump' should actually contribute to the discussion, even if it's just a quick summary of what has already been said so people don't need to read everything else. 16:01, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

Uhmmm when did we go from "limit to bumps" to "no bumps at all"? I think we should allow at least one bump per active discussion. There could be a case where the discussion is fresh, took time in a dead timezone and few people contributed. If such a discussion dies a bump just hits the spot so that more people can notice it. I say we limit it to (1 bump/active discussion).

The sarcastic and not helpful answer to your question would be: "October, when I posted about not allowing bumps". And I'm not talking about not allowing people to remind others of the discussion, just saying they should do so in a way that's more than just posting "bump." Look at my post here from Feb 13: It draws attention to the section while still containing helpful content. It's like a bump, but better. We should require all bumps to be like this because it will help make the conversations not ignored by people who will stop reading at the use of the word "bump." 23:30, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

No more "bumps"!
Bumps are becoming more of a thing again. Seeing two bumps in a row makes me cringe. People should be required to at least have a complete sentence related to a discussion if they're going to post. I want this to be a rule. 16:59, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. At the very least, a bump should add content, even if it's nothing better than restating that person's opinion on the discussion. Simply asking other people to discuss it is lazy.

17:01, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. If you can't take the effort to participate in the discussion, why should you expect other people to for you? 17:07, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that the stuff that gets bumped repeatedly is stuff most people tend not to, and how do i put this delicately, give two shits about. Usually the one bumping it is the only one who cares at all. 19:22, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Most definitely. But if not many people care it's maybe not that important, no? And it still needs to be discussed.

19:35, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm guilty of this too, but I can definitely see how annoying it is. Each bump needs substance. 20:51, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Bumps should have at least some substance. 21:38, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but sometimes I've added a sentence, and I get no response for a long time, so what else is there to add, a repeat of said sentence after the bump? 22:12, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Worst comes to worst, get on chat and ask people to participate? 22:50, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

I was actually going to suggest something similar to what Yata pointed out, but didn't know how to word it. I suppose repointing out what you just said and/or messaging key people who you want to see the message of would help. That is if it's been a long time, of course. 22:52, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

^Oh yeah, I forgot. User talk page forum invitations. We used to do these a lot, but not so much anymore. I don't see why we shouldn't. 22:54, August 11, 2015 (UTC)