Site Feedback No bump?

[connoisseurofsorts]

This may have already been discussed or turned down, perhaps even implemented but was removed at some point, but I couldn't find anything about it so I figured I would suggest it. I generally wouldn't, being new to the community and all, and it wouldn't offend or even surprise me if this gets over looked due to that, so no worries on my end, sorry if I'm bringing up something that is old news though.
But the option of a choice to not "bump" a thread when you post on it seems like it could be useful. I've seen it before and I'm part of one community that has it and while it's not something that is used very often, there are some times that I reply to something but don't want it to bump up for some reason. Be it the thread was asking for vendors/sources and I was informing him that such a request was against the rules but I didn't want to give the post any more attention beyond that until a mod noticed it, or maybe I wanted to add something to a thread that wasn't horribly important but relevant none the less, and didn't feel it was important enough to warrant a bump. There are more reasons/situations that this could be useful I'm sure, but I'm not very active on many discussion boards so I haven't put a horrible amount of thought into it, just recalling a couple times in recent history that I have personally felt it appropriate and useful.

Just a small little suggestion that some might think is worth considering.
Feel free to leave any criticism of this function or add your thoughts if you'd like, I'm not one to get upset if someone disagrees with me haha, in fact I'd be interested to hear any reasons one might have for not implementing it. I can't think of any personally but surely someone out there can.
Thanks if you read this without holding the fact that I am new to the community against the idea. Do feel free to hold it against me personally though, if you must.

 

[Jabberwocky]

As a moderator I would not want posts that do not bump a thread because I want to try to at least scan every new post or at least the newest posts for any potential problems.

Many users don't use subscriptions but watch a forum figuring if a thread they are interested in has been responded to it will move towards the top.

If you edit an existing post it doesn't bump the thread. If you have posted already editing is a way to make an addendum that doesn't bump the thread. I wouldn't want new posts that do not bump the thread but I thank you for the suggestion

 

[Captain.Heroin]

It's OK to bump a thread, but don't JUST bump a thread, add something useful to it!

If you have something useful, or even have specific questions that haven't been answered elsewhere, go ahead and ask them.

 

[Damien]

We care about what you have to say man. It's OK, just bump bump bump bump it up!

 

[connoisseurofsorts]

As a moderator I would not want posts that do not bump a thread because I want to try to at least scan every new post or at least the newest posts for any potential problems.

I can definitely understand that, it just hadn't occurred to me how much easier that is for you guys. Thanks for reading and replying!

 

[amapola]

I think that a no bump option is in effect the poster determining how the viewer experiences the site beyond their post. The onus should be on the viewer to have all the information presented to them and then deal with it as they wish. That being said if it were possible to implement a userCP option where you could choose to view the site "normal chronologically" or "no-bumps implemented" then it wouldn't bug me.

Of course then it would also be a specialty option for a small subset of users using no bump and nobump view and most people still wouldn't be no-bumping their posts (read not good). Hell we have enough of a problem getting people not to insistently bump them

 

[connoisseurofsorts]

I think that a no bump option is in effect the poster determining how the viewer experiences the site beyond their post. The onus should be on the viewer to have all the information presented to them and then deal with it as they wish. That being said if it were possible to implement a userCP option where you could choose to view the site "normal chronologically" or "no-bumps implemented" then it wouldn't bug me.

Of course then it would also be a specialty option for a small subset of users using no bump and nobump view and most people still wouldn't be no-bumping their posts (read not good). Hell we have enough of a problem getting people not to insistently bump them

So many different ways this function could work out!

The normal chronologically/no bump view function is interesting, and while this is a function that is proving to be more trouble than it is likely worth, I think making the function a little more restricted than initially planned could make it a little less problematic. Whether it could be worked out or not really is beyond me, but discussing it is pretty interesting.

One option that comes to mind, which as far as I can tell would make the problem Enki mentioned no longer troublesome is to make that feature available for just moderators instead of all users. (I won't be surprised if that isn't true, my ability to see through the eyes of a user and a moderator simultaneously is, clearly, impaired.)

I had another idea but I got carried away talking to a friend and can't remember all of it. The basic idea was to make the feature situational, but the details escape me now.

You could force the "no bump" on those persistent bumpers haha. I kid, I kid.

 

[felix]

Be it the thread was asking for vendors/sources and I was informing him that such a request was against the rules but I didn't want to give the post any more attention beyond that until a mod noticed it...

that's what the report button's for.

or maybe I wanted to add something to a thread that wasn't horribly important but relevant none the less, and didn't feel it was important enough to warrant a bump.

if it's relevant, it deserves to be bumped. if it's irrelevant or unimportant, don't post.