-
Palemoon -
Thank you. I agree with your views on this. I posted my first thread today and it has sunk so far that it will probably not be answered, although it has been viewed quite a few times. I've seen threads that were killed that had questions I would have liked to have seen answered, while others with (in my view) lame subjects kept rising to the top of the list. My opinion - if the subject is worthwhile and can provide a good learning experience for others it shouldn't be considered lame or 'filth' as Specter6 implies. Why not an option to request a Moderator bump a thread to the top based on the subject matter? Just my opinion . . . V.
-
I don't think a user should have to sign or provide a reason for a bump, but then again. I have noticed alot of negative posts being bumped. Are these posts being used by individuals to even out their points?
-
No offense man, this thread is kinda old and looked down upon when you bring back old threads. That's why the blinking date is there. Aside from that, I agree with you! :)
-
JC: Blame me, I was the one who bumped the thread, Joey just responded. I'm just trying to keep the site-suggestion threads which I consider good-but-not-quashed-or-accepted from sinking into total obscurity.
-
Greetings All:
Ok, I wrestled with this one for a while.
I don't want to have a "bump up" post the user's name, as I don't see that accomplishing much more than starting flame wars (why the hell did you bump this thread you dumb somsabitch) or discouraging people from bumping things up (I don't want to get a bunch of negative antipoints and be called a somsabitch, so I won't bump at all).
However, I do understand that the feature has been abused some.
Soooooooo, here's what I came up with:
From now on, only users that have actually posted in the thread, are able to bump it up.
Not exactly a rocket-scientist solution, but I think it will accomplish the goal of limiting abuse, while still encouraging people to use the function.
