Should Threads Be "Un-bumpable" After A Time?

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

What I mean...

Un-bumpable: After a certain period of time, the thread cannot be bumped to the top of the forum section because of a new post. You can still see respondents' names, and thread's location on the forum's front page.

Thread: Any "discussion," "poll," or "Q/A."

You can explain or add to your answer below. This obviously doesn't include what that time period would be, and lastly this is not "anonymous."

P.S., why you can't preview polls? Because Idk

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

Yep, 7 days of relevance.

[Sylvari.2953]

No. There are threads that are relevant for a long time (post your fashion, bugs that don't get fixed, requests, suggestions, feedback, etc), they can and should be bumped. Lame threads that get bumped/necroed for no reason should be closed by mods.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

It's pretty rare for threads to get necroed after long periods of time. When it has happened in the past the reasons have been...

• A troll re-opening threads (in each case, they were reported & warned or suspended, the necrotizing fasciitis removed, and the issue disappeared).
• A guild re-opening recruitment. (Seems like a fine reason to re-use a thread.)
• Someone offering updated info on an old issue (seems fine to offer new solutions or ask related questions)
• An egocentric player who thinks their issue should get priority over anyone else's (in each case, reported → warned → post removed → issue disappeared)

And so on.

I don't like when people necro posts for selfish or obscure reasons, but neither do I think it's anything close to a major problem for the forums. It's rare enough that the forum reporting tool is sufficient.

[mercury ranique.2170]

there are very valid reasons to bump a thread. e.g. to bump an existing bug that still hasn't resolved, or to answer an unanswered question.I think the community and the mods are doing a great job in fighting necroed threads, but it is always on the context if a bump was desired or not.

[Ayakaru.6583]

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:It's pretty rare for threads to get necroed after long periods of time. When it has happened in the past the reasons have been...

• A troll re-opening threads (in each case, they were reported & warned or suspended, the necrotizing fasciitis removed, and the issue disappeared).
• A guild re-opening recruitment. (Seems like a fine reason to re-use a thread.)
• Someone offering updated info on an old issue (seems fine to offer new solutions or ask related questions)
• An egocentric player who thinks their issue should get priority over anyone else's (in each case, reported → warned → post removed → issue disappeared)

And so on.

I don't like when people necro posts for selfish or obscure reasons, but neither do I think it's anything close to a major problem for the forums. It's rare enough that the forum reporting tool is sufficient.

Or an unresolved issue, sometimes bug posts get bumped after a few months if the issue’s unresolved.Point being, anet will suspend when some bumps a thread ill-intended.

[Lonami.2987]

A bump is always better than a duplicate thread.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

I don't know what the criteria is, but some threads do rise to the front when 'necro-ed'.

Here's an example: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/5176/website-inbox

[TheGrimm.5624]

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

P.S., why you can't preview polls? Because Idk

You can, just choose show results. When you are ready to vote, click on hide results and then you get the vote option back.

[TheGrimm.5624]

Voted for unbumpable but with a caveat that the time frame has to be outside of whatever the official policy is for necroing threads. If we are taking weeks, then would go no.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

At the very least the OP needs to be able to post.

Other than that, if a thread is past a certain date then i think it can be closed. If someone wants to answer an old question they can message the person.

[notebene.3190]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/ ->

One of the many things I really 'dislike' about it. That and how popular opinion controls the conversation. Like Rotten Tomatoes (which, at least had the sense to disclose it in their name). Reminds me of the Orville episode 'Majority Rule'.

[notebene.3190]

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:At the very least the OP needs to be able to post.

Other than that, if a thread is past a certain date then i think it can be closed. If someone wants to answer an old question they can message the person.

I don't know. I think 'date' is kinda arbitrary. Sometimes someone is genuinely finding a conversation and continuing it because on the other end of the spectrum, if you don't add your thoughts to something that already exists that is talking about the same thing, then you get berated for not searching. We can't win.

Especially with things like bugs, where they might be reported and then month after month goes by, and there's still no fix for it. I wish they had a real bug tracker, or at least some acknowledgement that things like that have at least made some sort of bug report.

I suppose a compromise would be if you have posts that are necro'd (based on some arbitrary time constraint) were flagged for review, and part of the moderators job would be to review those to see if they are just silly necros, at which point they can de-bump them by deleting the bump comment, positioning the main thread back to being based on the last real comment, or leave it, as it ads some sort of continued value to the discussion.

[Ashen.2907]

If the topic is still relevant, and the posts within it relevant, then I think that it should be possible to bump a thread.

[Frostfang.5109]

Only if the devs think so and have made a thread un-bumpable.

[Widowmaker Z.4802]

No and here's why, if someone starts a new thread about something that already had a thread started previously, they get bitched at by people saying there is a thread for this and use the search function. On the other hand if they do search the forums and find a thread they want to comment in, even if it's a older thread, they get bitched at for necroing an old thread. Well you can't have it both ways.

[Cobrakon.3108]

Perhaps you posted a theory thread out there some time ago and everything you said came true. Now its time to gloat so you bump that bad boy right up to the top. Yes, your full of pride and ha ha I told you so. Savor it.. Yes that should be something allowed.

[Bunter.3795]

On the old forums the "official" policy was that threads with the last post over 3 months old were not to be necro'd. I'm not sure if that is the same standard on these new forums.

There are many reasons to allow a post to be bumped up and they should be able to have that function. A good example of this would be a bug report or some "issue" with the game that impedes a persons progress. A person crafts a well worded thread about a bug or performance issue about the game should be able to (not that everyone does) wait a month/2 months for that issue to be addressed. Bugs can take time to be addressed and it doesn't make since to limit the time for a poster to be able to bump it up to gain more notice. I'd rather have it bumped once a month/2 months than have it bumped every 7 days.

As a guideline I always agreed with the 3 month rule as that gave time for people to post and if no one had commented in 3 months then the issue couldn't have been that bad.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Actually, at the time of old-forum closing, the time limit was 6 months. That was a policy change from the 1 month, or so, that it had been.

I think the "doesn't move back to the front page" issue is more a bug, than policy, as some threads do move, and some do not.

Here's another example (on this very front page) of an old thread that was 'bumped': https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/5016/curious-bowl-in-fortunes-vale-and-its-rewards

[Leo G.4501]

I personally don't mind an older thread being bumped, but I think you should only be able to bumb a thread 1 time and any other time you post in the same thread, it doesn't get bumped. With notifications telling you if someone quoted you, you don't really need to see the same thread pushed up unless you're following it...

[sorudo.9054]

an unresolved issue is still unresolved, closing the threat doesn't help it.

[Menadena.7482]

Umm, why? If a thread has something new why not bump it to the top?

[Menadena.7482]

Some threads get combined by anet and we are not supposed to create new threads close to the topic. So does this mean we would have to stop talking about whatever after a set number of days whether or not the thing was resolved? It could be a huge bug, a major release, whatever.

[Ardid.7203]

There is a very harmful trend of considering only recent information is worthy. Well, old knowledge and new data needs to converge to really create meaningful topics. Condemning old discussions to oblivion even when there is actualization for the topic is wrong.

[Zedek.8932]

Posts are not yogurt - they don't expire. Also, when I google things and I get "Do not bump /closed" and can straight history:back in my browser I always wonder why? Apparently the thread is not done when someone has to add something. It makes sense to have all the information in one thread, not several ones. The rest should do the forum moderation.

Scenario: I needed a few info how to set up a DOS game. The thread was from 2004, some guy in 2009, 5 years later, posted: "I have downloaded DOSBOX, can you [the thread creator who was a very good and helpful mate in that matter] me too?" and some mod came in an barked "THREAD NECRO. WARNED AND CLOSED" and I had to figure it out myself. (If everthing was as easy as the soundcard's IRQ)

Excelsior.