I did a quick search, and didn't find anything on the issue, nor did I find anything in the rules. But I'm just wondering, in relation to time, what is classified as a bump? I'm aware that you're not allowed the kind of bump where you append a post to your thread. Some sites have a rule like 'Don't post in a thread older than 7 days old,' for example. Thanks.
Do you mean reviving a dead thread? Bumping refers specifically to a member posting in a thread with the expressed purpose of bringing it to the top of the list to garner attention for it, which is against the rules. As for a dead thread that hasn't been posting in for days or weeks or months, I think the general thing we do it start a new one on the same topic rather than bring back the old one (though you might want to read the old one. Very likely that if you have a question about a subject the old thread may hold your answer, and eliminate the need to make a new thread).
That's how I thought it worked, just making sure . It's just that people tend to be over-zealous on other sites; even locking threads if they're "bumped"(up about one position), not even the poster's own threads, in sections where posts are made weekly. Though I figure the mods are alot more mature on here. Thanks for the info.
Talking about bumping in the review room, am I the only one who hates when someone brings a several month old, already reviewed, thread back to mingle with the recent? 'Cause how I see it is that someone posts a, let's say, song because they like where it is going but want some help to make it even better, they get loads of reviews, they finish their song (or don't) and they subsequently move on. Why would they want a "I think it's very nice!" a few months later? All it does is lower the amount of reviews a recently posted song will get. I mean, I'm not against people reading them as they can be very helpful (both song and reviews) but do they really have to post a tinsy two liner review that has already been said?
I will revive dead threads for certain reasons. If, for example, I read something that interests me, I often look back at the poster's previous work. All too often you find things with flaws, followed by a stream of 'I love this' style comments obviously made to cover the need for two crits per posting. Now, if that work has something that should be commented on, I think it has to be revived. After all, the poster might have taken the reaction seriously and be wasting time and effort sending it off to be considered for publication. Also, where someone has taken time to revise a piece, I think it's right it stays in the original thread, so others can see how they've changed it. What annoys me more than revived threads is the amount of 'Great work' style posts on awful work, merely to meet the two posts criterium. It doesn't affect me because I crit more than I post, but these people then expect someone to spend time giving them help, whilst they've put in minimal effort with others. It's just lazy.
