Why is Necroing/Bumping bad?

General Discussion
Prev 1 3 4 5 7 Next
Bumping is bad because it doesn't add content - it's just forcing a thread up to the top again... but like capslock, it doesn't actually add information. It's just a cheesy gimmick to try and make a thread seem more relevant than other threads, with no actual justification that it is.

Necroing is bad because it destroys context. Posters often don't realize they are answering someone's four year old question, or why someone asked something that's four years out of date. It adds needless distraction. Often the matter is already settled, should go to another forum, or should have a fresh look and not just resurrecting a withered old corpse of a thread.


First of all bump is a pointless post made just to bring a topic to the top. If the post does contain actuall information relevant to the topic it is not a bump.

You are making really bad assumptions. The age and time of a post does not determine the context of all posts. A four year old question may not have been answered four years ago. It may have a new answer now. Having the older posts actually provides more context if people bother to read the dates.


So cluttering the forums with clones of useless topics is a good thing?

Lol, sorry but that's just hilarious.


I'm sorry if you have nothing to add to this discussion but mis-framing the debate.

Perhaps, in time, you'll come to understand the issue at a deeper level.


Snowfox, no offense, but your arguments are all over the place.

1. Necros and bumps are bad.
2. Sometimes there are valid reasons for bumps.
3. You should never necro, but you should make a new post.
4. You shouldn't make a new post without google searching for the answer.
5. I'm here to answer question.

What question have you answered that couldn't be found from some other site about WoW, which already had the answer? If these forums only had new and original questions, they would have traffic except for about a week after each patch. That's my point. You're in favor of people creating new threads on topics, instead of bumping old, but yet still relevant topics which haven't received a direct answer, but at the same time, you're against new topics posting about things which could be found on Google. So basically, you're against every new post on these forums, if we go by that rule.

The other poster wasn't "mis-framing" anything. You flat out told me the answer to my question, finally, and they posted how nonsensical that answer way, in their opinion.

First of all bump is a pointless post made just to bring a topic to the top. If the post does contain actuall information relevant to the topic it is not a bump.


You are playing semantics... trying to define "bump" by a definition I disagree with.

A bump can absolutely be a constructive information-laden post.

In fact, that's what the smart bumpers do. It's the dumb bumpers who just post "bump"


You are making really bad assumptions. The age and time of a post does not determine the context of all posts. A four year old question may not have been answered four years ago. It may have a new answer now. Having the older posts actually provides more context if people bother to read the dates.


That's why the mods keep old posts around.

However what you said doesn't justify necroing at all.

Snowfox, no offense, but your arguments are all over the place.


That's because there's five of you all picking fragments from my posts to other people, then trying to give replies to your responses to the picked fragments.

First of all bump is a pointless post made just to bring a topic to the top. If the post does contain actuall information relevant to the topic it is not a bump.


You are playing semantics... trying to define "bump" by a definition I disagree with.

A bump can absolutely be a constructive information-laden post.

In fact, that's what the smart bumpers do. It's the dumb bumpers who just post "bump"

BUMP stands for "Bring Up My Post."

No, it's not semantics, just because you don't know the origin of the word.




You are making really bad assumptions. The age and time of a post does not determine the context of all posts. A four year old question may not have been answered four years ago. It may have a new answer now. Having the older posts actually provides more context if people bother to read the dates.


That's why the mods keep old posts around.

However what you said doesn't justify necroing at all.

Snowfox, no offense, but your arguments are all over the place.


That's because there's five of you all picking fragments from my posts to other people, then trying to give replies to your responses to the picked fragments.

What are you even talking about? Nobody is "picking fragments" from your post. Your posts have, for the most part, been all over the place, as I've already pointed out. That's not an attack on you, I have nothing against you, but in this topic, you are jumping around worse than an ADD panda on a trampoline.

Edit: Typo.

BUMP stands for "Bring Up My Post."

No, it's not semantics, just because you don't know the origin of the word.


Okay. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Have a great night!
There is a mental malady that makes people think old equals dead.


There's truth to it though. We don't "bump" old news stories... because they are played out the day they are aired. We don't eat old food, because it goes bad.

There's a saying "old code rusts", and it's the same with threads on the forums.

When threads go old, their context goes cold.


You have made no point. Just maknig a bunch of poor anicdotes, metaphores, and stupid rhymes. Just because you you can rhyme or quote a saying (a poor one) does not mean you are right.

Many old news stories still have had no conclusion. We still don't know what happened to Amelia Earhart. If they find her body or some other evidence are you gonna accuse the newspapers of necroing?
12/18/2012 04:21 PMPosted by Snowfox
However what you said doesn't justify necroing at all.


I keeps thing in context
12/18/2012 04:25 PMPosted by Knilya
We still don't know what happened to Amelia Earhart. If they find her body or some other evidence are you gonna acuse the news papers of necroing?


Yes Knilya, that's been my plan in this thread all along.

Thanks for revealing my diabolical plot.
Bumping is bad because it doesn't add content - it's just forcing a thread up to the top again... but like capslock, it doesn't actually add information. It's just a cheesy gimmick to try and make a thread seem more relevant than other threads, with no actual justification that it is.

Necroing is bad because it destroys context. Posters often don't realize they are answering someone's four year old question, or why someone asked something that's four years out of date. It adds needless distraction. Often the matter is already settled, should go to another forum, or should have a fresh look and not just resurrecting a withered old corpse of a thread.


I think the problem is... a person is searching on something relevant on google, they find a post, Go OH... I have this bit to add to the conversation. And then get a ban notice 2 days later... Having no idea that they did anything wrong.

To be honest... once posts go over the "necro" limit... they should be locked by default. Necro bump problem gone... just by doing that.

I mean ive done this exact thing. It was a lore discussion and I had something I felt was relevant to the conversation and ... it legitimately was... however the post was 3 months old. And so I got a week ban.... It felt wrong... but the system did it automatically I think.
12/18/2012 04:21 PMPosted by Snowfox
In fact, that's what the smart bumpers do. It's the dumb bumpers who just post "bump"


No the smart bumpers post something that "appears" to be relevant. If it is actually relevant and adds new information then it is not a bump.

To be honest... once posts go over the "necro" limit... they should be locked by default. Necro bump problem gone... just by doing that.


Hrmm, there is a bit of a point there - they could lock all threads after a certain point.

I think they probably don't because of stickies, but there may be other reasons.
12/18/2012 04:27 PMPosted by Concequence
I think the problem is... a person is searching on something relevant on google, they find a post, Go OH... I have this bit to add to the conversation. And then get a ban notice 2 days later... Having no idea that they did anything wrong.


What did they do wrong? They had a reason to post.
BUMP stands for "Bring Up My Post."

No, it's not semantics, just because you don't know the origin of the word.


Whether this is true or not, the basic point about it still stands.

A post that says "Bump" presents no useful information, and if you have to bump a post, it's better to do it in another way.

So not sure what argument you're making here.

BUMP stands for "Bring Up My Post."

No, it's not semantics, just because you don't know the origin of the word.


Okay. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Have a great night!

I hope you have a good night as well. However, I'm not "agreeing to disagree" on this one, because you're accusing someone of using semantics just because you aren't familiar with what "BUMP" actually means.

BUMP was originally referring to posts that simply state, "BUMP," or in other words, "bring up my post." Over the years, people have seen other members claiming a post was "bumped" and took it to mean that any post which brings up an older topic is a "BUMP," and that's not the case.

Word usage evolves, I understand this. However, this is an acronym, not a word.

Whether this is true or not, the basic point about it still stands.

A post that says "Bump" presents no useful information, and if you have to bump a post, it's better to do it in another way.

So not sure what argument you're making here.

My argument is that Snowfox is saying all "bumps" are bad news. Going with her definition of "bump," which appears to be any post that brings the topic back up, it's not a correct assessment. Some "bumps" are relevant. Like I said though, another poster already stated how even just saying, "bump," can be conducive to intelligent discussion. It brings the post up for people who browse these forums at a different time (after the thread has reached page 2+ within an hour after the last post) to see it and comment. If you browse all of the stickies on this site, you'll come across threads that people trolled, and the OP just simply said, "Bump," later in the thread and meaningful discussion happened, which led to it being stickied.

This alone disproves that "bumping is bad, because it adds no content."

To be honest... once posts go over the "necro" limit... they should be locked by default. Necro bump problem gone... just by doing that.


Hrmm, there is a bit of a point there - they could lock all threads after a certain point.

I think they probably don't because of stickies, but there may be other reasons.


I really wish I would have asked that during the customer service q and a but I just hadn't thought of the idea yet else I would have. Autolock to prevent necroing e.c.t..
12/18/2012 04:36 PMPosted by Boffo
So not sure what argument you're making here.


The point is that Snowfox thinks that a post that is relevant and useful is still a bump.


The point is that Snowfox thinks that a post that is relevant and useful is still a bump.


No, and please do NOT try putting words in my mouth.


Reposting this from my edit, since quite a few posts have come while I was editing my response to Boffo.


My argument is that Snowfox is saying all "bumps" are bad news. Going with her definition of "bump," which appears to be any post that brings the topic back up, it's not a correct assessment. Some "bumps" are relevant. Like I said though, another poster already stated how even just saying, "bump," can be conducive to intelligent discussion. It brings the post up for people who browse these forums at a different time (after the thread has reached page 2+ within an hour after the last post) to see it and comment. If you browse all of the stickies on this site, you'll come across threads that people trolled, and the OP just simply said, "Bump," later in the thread and meaningful discussion happened, which led to it being stickied.

This alone disproves that "bumping is bad, because it adds no content."


You did say, on the first page, post #7, that:
Bumping is bad because it doesn't add content - it's just forcing a thread up to the top again... but like capslock, it doesn't actually add information. It's just a cheesy gimmick to try and make a thread seem more relevant than other threads, with no actual justification that it is.

Stop claiming people are putting words in your mouth, when you typed them.

Stop claiming people are putting words in your mouth, when you typed them.


If I typed them, then QUOTE them.

Paraphrasing me, for selfish ends, is putting words in my mouth.

ESPECIALLY when done to skew what I was saying.


Okay. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Have a great night!

I hope you have a good night as well. However, I'm not "agreeing to disagree" on this one, because you're accusing someone of using semantics just because you aren't familiar with what "BUMP" actually means.

BUMP was originally referring to posts that simply state, "BUMP," or in other words, "bring up my post." Over the years, people have seen other members claiming a post was "bumped" and took it to mean that any post which brings up an older topic is a "BUMP," and that's not the case.

Word usage evolves, I understand this. However, this is an acronym, not a word.


Acronym? Bump is a word that means to knock something from one place to another, which given the context fits in well with what bumping a thread is doing. I'd find it far easier to believe that "Bring Up My Post" is a backronym.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum