Old Threads vs 'Already Thread there'

[Pyramid*]

Can someone please explain something.

Members are told off and / or infracted for 'bumping old threads'.

Members are told off and / or infracted for raising new threads on subject that there are already threads about.

Isn't this confusing to say the least. If a member searches for a thread on a subject and uses that (as we are told to do, check to see if threads on a subject already exist): when they do, I often see the 'stop bumping old threads' comments.

When they start a thread which may replicate some threads even some time back, they are told, "There is already a thread on this subject".


Which 'rule' are we meant to follow?

:conf:

[Jordan.]

Only when old threads are bumped for no good reason.

[michael21]

Only when old threads are bumped for no good reason.

i think you should stop bumping your cher thread :joker:

[michael21]

Can someone please explain something.

Members are told off and / or infracted for 'bumping old threads'.

Members are told off and / or infracted for raising new threads on subject that there are already threads about.

Isn't this confusing to say the least. If a member searches for a thread on a subject and uses that (as we are told to do, check to see if threads on a subject already exist): when they do, I often see the 'stop bumping old threads' comments.

When they start a thread which may replicate some threads even some time back, they are told, "There is already a thread on this subject".


Which 'rule' are we meant to follow?

:conf:


good post i agree :hugesmile:

[Pyramid*]

Only when old threads are bumped for no good reason.


I understand that. I have seen threads that have been bumped,added to for good reason and still the member is told off.

Hence the reason for the question. :)

[Jordan.]

I understand that. I have seen threads that have been bumped,added to for good reason and still the member is told off.

Hence the reason for the question. :)

Do you have an example? I've never seen a mod do this :suspect:

[Marsh.]

No, when someone is bumping random chat threads about what some old member had for dinner in November 2002 then it is trolling.

[michael21]

I think the bump 'rule silly what because its a old thread we are not aloud to talk about it :conf:

[Pyramid*]

Do you have an example? I've never seen a mod do this :suspect:


CBA ..... I've seen it happen frequently over the months otherwise I would not have posted.

No, when someone is bumping random chat threads about what some old member had for dinner in November 2002 then it is trolling.

Possibly.

[michael21]

No, when someone is bumping random chat threads about what some old member had for dinner in November 2002 then it is trolling.

what about ex housemate would that be ok?

[Jordan.]

CBA ..... I've seen it happen frequently over the months otherwise I would not have posted.

hmmm okay.

[Marsh.]

what about ex housemate would that be ok?

No. Nobody cares about that random thread about Jade and Alex sharing a spag bol in BB3.
If it's an interesting discussion thread about a particular series and the person who bumped the thread has added something substantial to it then it's fine. If they've just added a smilie or some random "I agree" or something then it's unnecessary.

[Boothy]

Perfect, recent example of an unnecessary bump

http://thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149989

I don't think there's much of a problem as long as the bump contributes something worthwhile to the thread.

[michael21]

Perfect, recent example of an unnecessary bump

http://thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149989

I don't think there's much of a problem as long as the bump contributes something worthwhile to the thread.

lol i just view this but is it still a bump as the poster is not the op?

[MTVN]

lol i just view this but is it still a bump as the poster is not the op?

Yes..

[Pyramid*]

hmmm okay.


(http://thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4445291&postcount=11)http://thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4445291&postcount=11

(http://thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4445291&postcount=11)http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...d.php?t=145574 (http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145574)
(http://thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4445291&postcount=11)http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...d.php?t=147685 (http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147685)
(http://thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4445291&postcount=11)http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...d.php?t=136023 (http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136023)
(http://thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4445291&postcount=11)http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...d.php?t=159901 (http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159901)
(http://thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4445291&postcount=11)http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...d.php?t=140500 (http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140500)
(http://thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4445291&postcount=11)http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...d.php?t=135543 (http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135543)
(http://thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4445291&postcount=11)http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...d.php?t=140954 (http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140954)
(http://thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4445291&postcount=11)http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...d.php?t=140503 (http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140503)

(http://thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4445291&postcount=11)

I see you have already had this type of look around (see all the posts in your comment above) ..... now you see how some of these threads don't have disparaging comments regarding them being bumped: and some of them do - even though some of them are definately still on topic.

[Marsh.]

lol i just view this but is it still a bump as the poster is not the op?

Are you being a little empty headed on purpose? A "bump" is a "bump" no matter who it is that "bumped". lol

[Vicky.]

I have yet to see someone be 'told off' for bumping a thread for a reason.

They do get told off for bumping them for no reason however.

[Jordan.]

I see you have already had this type of look around (see all the posts in your comment above) ..... now you see how some of these threads don't have disparaging comments regarding them being bumped: and some of them do - even though some of them are definately still on topic.

Yes but there was still no good reason something regarding BB10 to be bumped now. Even if some posts are on topic its pointless.

The OP was doing it because he knew it was annoying people.

[michael21]

I have yet to see someone be 'told off' for bumping a thread for a reason.

They do get told off for bumping them for no reason however.

what about this thread http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171233 :conf:

[michael21]

Yes but there was still no good reason something regarding BB10 to be bumped now. Even if some posts are on topic its pointless.

The OP was doing it because he knew it was annoying people.

your wrong as i had some very good reply and its on topic

[Pyramid*]

Yes but there was still no good reason something regarding BB10 to be bumped now. Even if some posts are on topic its pointless.

The OP was doing it because he knew it was annoying people.

why... perhaps others may have joined in? this year's BB has not yet started - it doesn't mean suddenly all discussion in previous years shows cannot be discussed. (otherwise it seems pretty silly to have any threads at all on previous shows?)

Vicky: next time I see it: I'll post it up here. It does happen.

[Vicky.]

what about this thread http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171233 :conf:

What about it? :S

[Marsh.]

what about this thread http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171233 :conf:

Arista should have been banned for that atrocity.

[michael21]

What about it? :S

well that my point there nothing wrong with it yet some members will see it as a bump

[Pyramid*]

What about it? :S


Have a look at it. the same poster posting the same comment over and over and over again .... with an occasional slight variation.

[Jordan.]

why... perhaps others may have joined in? this year's BB has not yet started - it doesn't mean suddenly all discussion in previous years shows cannot be discussed. (otherwise it seems pretty silly to have any threads at all on previous shows?)

Can you give me a good reason what bumping a thread about Sophie Reade running the London Marathon 2 years ago has to contribute now and what there is left to discuss on the matter?

Tbh Pyramid this thread just seems like you want to have a good moan about something.

[Marsh.]

well that my point there nothing wrong with it yet some members will see it as a bump

It's not an old thread bump. Are you missing the point about the difference between bumping a discussion thread from yesterday compared to a random thread from years ago?

Although that Emma Crosby thread is just stupid and should be closed.

[michael21]

Can you give me a good reason what bumping a thread about Sophie Reade running the London Marathon 2 years ago has to contribute now and what there is left to discuss on the matter?

Tbh Pyramid this thread just seems like you want to have a good moan about something.

well if yiu read the post you would see as i said i want Sophie Reade to go in cleb bb 2011 :dance:

[Locke.]

Still waiting for a day to go past where Pyramid doesn't find something to moan or argue about

[Pyramid*]

Can you give me a good reason what bumping a thread about Sophie Reade running the London Marathon 2 years ago has to contribute now and what there is left to discuss on the matter?

Tbh Pyramid this thread just seems like you want to have a good moan about something.

You're entitled to your opinion Jordan, just as I am entitled to ask the question I have. Stop trying to turn it into something personal.

The comment highlighting Arista's constant bumping with nothing more to say apart from repeating: is a perfect example of my very point.

[Marsh.]

well if yiu read the post you would see as i said i want Sophie Reade to go in cleb bb 2011 :dance:

Then why not post in the appropriate "who do you want to go into CBB" thread in the relevant sub-forum?

[Vicky.]

well that my point there nothing wrong with it yet some members will see it as a bump

Have a look at it. the same poster posting the same comment over and over and over again .... with an occasional slight variation.

Two very different answers :laugh:

I havent even seen that thread before actually i dont think D:

[Pyramid*]

Still waiting for a day to go past where Pyramid doesn't find something to moan or argue about

Once again Locke, you enter a thread, do not comment on the OP or what the thread is about but continue to attack me personally and are allowed to doing so constantly.

[Pyramid*]

Two very different answers :laugh:

I havent even seen that thread before actually i dont think D:

I can't comment on Michael's reply: but do you see the point I am making in respect of my own answer?

[Marsh.]

Woe is me.

[michael21]

Two very different answers :laugh:

I havent even seen that thread before actually i dont think D:

i think you should lock that emma c thread now you have seen it

[Pyramid*]

Woe is me.

yes. Either harrassing a member on a personal basis continually is allowed or it's not and I shoudl be allowed to post without being constantly baited and harrassed by such members - who still have offered nothing to the actual thread other than personal attack.

Rather than it being dealt with: it allows to continue with the result that threads are simply closed - rather than dealing with the culprits.

[Vicky.]

I can't comment on Michael's reply: but do you see the point I am making in respect of my own answer?

I do. But I dont get what relevance it has to your OP actually.

I thought the point was that people shouldnt be told off for bumping threads :/

I'm a bit lost with the whole thing tbh :p

[Jordan.]

You're entitled to your opinion Jordan, just as I am entitled to ask the question I have. Stop trying to turn it into something personal.

The comment highlighting Arista's constant bumping with nothing more to say apart from repeating: is a perfect example of my very point.

I know that but you must be able to see the difference in bumping a thread about someone running a marathon years ago compared to something like the Word Association thread being bumped? Also you're getting at the point mods complain when old threads are bumped yet haven't shown us any clear example of this happening.

& with Arista he bumps tv discussion threads, its not his fault no one cares :laugh:

[michael21]

I do. But I dont get what relevance it has to your OP actually.

I thought the point was that people shouldnt be told off for bumping threads :/

I'm a bit lost with the whole thing tbh :p

:bawling: stop being cleaver and close the emma cosby thread :dance:

[Pyramid*]

I do. But I dont get what relevance it has to your OP actually.

I thought the point was that people shouldnt be told off for bumping threads :/

I'm a bit lost with the whole thing tbh :p


The relevance is: at what point is it one or the other as far as 'not allowed to bump' / 'seek out previous threads'.

The Arista thread is an example of spamming and bumping, yet other old threads that have been added to - the poster gets aggro for it. :conf:

[Boothy]

well if yiu read the post you would see as i said i want Sophie Reade to go in cleb bb 2011 :dance:

What has that go to do with her running the marathon?

[Pyramid*]

I know that but you must be able to see the difference in bumping a thread about someone running a marathon years ago compared to something like the Word Association thread being bumped? Also you're getting at the point mods complain when old threads are bumped yet haven't shown us any clear example of this happening.

& with Arista he bumps tv discussion threads, its not his fault no one cares :laugh:

It happens believe me.

I said earlier: next time I see it happening -I'll post on here.

As for Arista - are certain members allowed concessions and not expected to follow the same rules as others then? :conf: I'm being serious.

Either bumping threads for no good reason is allowed or it's not.

[michael21]

What has that go to do with her running the marathon?

well lots as the person running it was who i wanted to go in the house and there both for charity :dance:

[Locke.]

Arista bumps his thread near enough daily when the TV show he is talking about is on. He has a perfectly good reason for doing it, which is that the TV show is on.. He does it in other threads about TV shows but people actually care about them and talk about the shows in the threads so you don't really notice it. All he is doing is reminind people that it is on.

Posting in threads that haven't had a reply for years is completely different.

ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU DO IT IN MULTIPLE THREADS ALL THE TIME MICHAEL21 AND THEBEAST

[Vicky.]

The relevance is: at what point is it one or the other as far as 'not allowed to bump' / 'seek out previous threads'.

The Arista thread is an example of spamming and bumping, yet other old threads that have been added to - the poster gets aggro for it. :conf:

Aristas thread(while being pretty pointless IMO) is being bumped to inform people that 'fit emma' is on tv at that time. Thus having a (very slight) reason behind the bumping.

Lets take for example...a thread about davina presenting BB + the million pound drop 2 years ago or whatever. This gets bumped. What possible reason is there for that? You could argue that the poster wanted to know what davina was up to NOW, but why bump the old thread...why not make a new one?

The looking for old threads before making a new one thing...this is more for during BB really. We do expect people to at least scan through the first page of threads in the BB forum before starting another thread. Reason being...otherwise we would likely have about 20 threads on exactly the same subject. We do not expect you to do a proper search to check every thread that you make, thats just ridiculous. I know some members do say things like 'theres a thread on this, it was made in 2005 :idc: ' and whatever, but tbh thats just them being awkward.

[Pyramid*]

Aristas thread(while being pretty pointless IMO) is being bumped to inform people that 'fit emma' is on tv at that time. Thus having a (very slight) reason behind the bumping.

Lets take for example...a thread about davina presenting BB + the million pound drop 2 years ago or whatever. This gets bumped. What possible reason is there for that? You could argue that the poster wanted to know what davina was up to NOW, but why bump the old thread...why not make a new one?

The looking for old threads before making a new one thing...this is more for during BB really. We do expect people to at least scan through the first page of threads in the BB forum before starting another thread. Reason being...otherwise we would likely have about 2 threads on exactly the same subject. We do not expect you to do a proper search to check every thread that you make, thats just ridiculous. I know some members do say things like 'theres a thread on this, it was made in 2005 :idc: ' and whatever, but tbh thats just them being awkward.


So it is okay to bump threads that are pretty pointless, that have no real relevance (when all is considered) and just keep putting up the same comment.

I agree with 7 year old threads etc totally ridiculous, agree 100% with you: but surely a thread from say last year, if there is some comment that is still relative, it should be allowed?

You see why I ask the question now? :conf:

[Vicky.]

So it is okay to bump threads that are pretty pointless, that have no real relevance (when all is considered) and just keep putting up the same comment.

I agree with 7 year old threads etc totally ridiculous, agree 100% with you: but surely a thread from say last year, if there is some comment that is still relative, it should be allowed?

You see why I ask the question now? :conf:
But again, I have NEVER seen this happen. Until you give an example of this(which shouldnt be hard as it happens all the time) I cant really comment. :/

[michael21]

Aristas thread(while being pretty pointless IMO) is being bumped to inform people that 'fit emma' is on tv at that time. Thus having a (very slight) reason behind the bumping.

Lets take for example...a thread about davina presenting BB + the million pound drop 2 years ago or whatever. This gets bumped. What possible reason is there for that? You could argue that the poster wanted to know what davina was up to NOW, but why bump the old thread...why not make a new one?

The looking for old threads before making a new one thing...this is more for during BB really. We do expect people to at least scan through the first page of threads in the BB forum before starting another thread. Reason being...otherwise we would likely have about 20 threads on exactly the same subject. We do not expect you to do a proper search to check every thread that you make, thats just ridiculous. I know some members do say things like 'theres a thread on this, it was made in 2005 :idc: ' and whatever, but tbh thats just them being awkward.


because channel 4 are showing a movie on the 17th that why channel5 move bb to the 18th i was saying i bet channel 4 put on the MPD when bb on what wrong with its better then saying on now right

[Pyramid*]

Arista bumps his thread near enough daily when the TV show he is talking about is on. He has a perfectly good reason for doing it, which is that the TV show is on.. He does it in other threads about TV shows but people actually care about them and talk about the shows in the threads so you don't really notice it. All he is doing is reminind people that it is on.

Posting in threads that haven't had a reply for years is completely different.

ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU DO IT IN MULTIPLE THREADS ALL THE TIME MICHAEL21 AND THEBEAST

Which is my very point. People who like Emma will be aware when the TV show is on. Yet it's still allowed - despite it only being the one person posting over and over again.

Seems a bit like double standards, that's all I'm saying: simply putting my opinion over.

[Vicky.]

because channel 5 are showing a movie on the 17th that why channel5 move bb to the 18th i was saying i bet channel 4 put on the MPD when bb on what wrong with its better then saying on now right

Yeah but this hasnt really got anything to do with the original thread.

Im surprised you didnt put that little piece of info in your freeview thread actually :tongue:

[Marsh.]

Which is my very point. People who like Emma will be aware when the TV show is on. Yet it's still allowed - despite it only being the one person posting over and over again.

Seems a bit like double standards, that's all I'm saying: simply putting my opinion over.

No, there's a select couple of members that may bump the soaps threads to discuss them when they're on TV. Arista bumps the thread when Emma is on channel 5 news. It's not his fault he's the only one to watch channel 5.

As much as I find it pointless and irritating it's not the same as bumping the Sophie Reade marathon thread.

[michael21]

Yeah but this hasnt really got anything to do with the original thread.

Im surprised you didnt put that little piece of info in your freeview thread actually :tongue:

:nono: what have there put in you tea today :bawling: (that tread does have a lot of good info you no you love it :hugesmile:)

[michael21]

No, there's a select couple of members that may bump the soaps threads to discuss them when they're on TV. Arista bumps the thread when Emma is on channel 5 news. It's not his fault he's the only one to watch channel 5.

As much as I find it pointless and irritating it's not the same as bumping the Sophie Reade marathon thread.

but i only did it one time he does it every day almost :bawling:

[Pyramid*]

But again, I have NEVER seen this happen. Until you give an example of this(which shouldnt be hard as it happens all the time) I cant really comment. :/

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136023

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140500

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135543

One which a member is getting gried: the 2 other in which members have not a word said to them. This is what I find confusing.

[Jordan.]

No, there's a select couple of members that may bump the soaps threads to discuss them when they're on TV. Arista bumps the thread when Emma is on channel 5 news. It's not his fault he's the only one to watch channel 5.

As much as I find it pointless and irritating it's not the same as bumping the Sophie Reade marathon thread.

.

[Zippy]

what about this thread http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171233 :conf:

:joker::joker:

arista bumping just to keep saying she's on TV!

[Pyramid*]

No, there's a select couple of members that may bump the soaps threads to discuss them when they're on TV. Arista bumps the thread when Emma is on channel 5 news. It's not his fault he's the only one to watch channel 5.

As much as I find it pointless and irritating it's not the same as bumping the Sophie Reade marathon thread.

No hope for this year's BB then.

Again, this is my point. If she's on the news: there is no need for such a thread to be bumped.

All I am saying is that it is a rule that I find can be bent to suit: I'm not quite getting any feeling of consistency (and not necessarily from the mods I have to say, it's not all about them, that I want to make clear) - it seems (seems) that some can't do right for doing wrong.

[Zippy]

Moan moan moan

the only consistent thing at TiBB is the inconsistency. You should really know that by now.

[michael21]

bump :laugh2:

[Vicky.]

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136023

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140500

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135543

One which a member is getting gried: the 2 other in which members have not a word said to them. This is what I find confusing.

The first thread was bumped with 'i bet channel 4 bring back the MPD and put it on the same time as Big Brother ' which has nothing to do really with the OP. Also came after the member in question bumped a LOT of old threads (sorry michael, you know I love you really :p)

Second was bumped with just a :laugh3: smiley...surely you see the problem there.

Third was bumped with 'i want Sophie Reade in celebrity big brother 2011'. This has nothing to do with the marathon at all.

All three were bumped by the same user(the OP...of the bumped threads), but they deleted their bumps after the other members commented, making it look like other people had bumped them.

[michael21]

The first thread was bumped with 'i bet channel 4 bring back the MPD and put it on the same time as Big Brother ' which has nothing to do really with the OP. Also came after the member in question bumped a LOT of old threads (sorry michael, you know I love you really :p)

Second was bumped with just a :laugh3: smiley...surely you see the problem there.

Third was bumped with 'i want Sophie Reade in celebrity big brother 2011'. This has nothing to do with the marathon at all.

All three were bumped by the same user(the OP), but they deleted their bumps after the other members commented, making it look like other people had bumped them.


Vicky love me :dance: o yea and :bawling::bawling::bawling:

[Zippy]

All three were bumped by the same user(the OP), but they deleted their bumps after the other members commented, making it look like other people had bumped them.

:joker:

crafty bitch

[michael21]

i would bump Jordan threads but there all about cher lloyd :joker:

[Jordan.]

i would bump Jordan threads but there all about cher lloyd :joker:

Prove it

[Marsh.]

No hope for this year's BB then.

Again, this is my point. If she's on the news: there is no need for such a thread to be bumped.

All I am saying is that it is a rule that I find can be bent to suit: I'm not quite getting any feeling of consistency (and not necessarily from the mods I have to say, it's not all about them, that I want to make clear) - it seems (seems) that some can't do right for doing wrong.

Well the majority of this board have said BB is the only thing that is getting them switching to the channel. Other than that there's nothing.

[michael21]

Prove it

your post just did that :tongue:

[Jordan.]

your post just did that :tongue:

A post is not a thread :idc:

[michael21]

Well the majority of this board have said BB is the only thing that is getting them switching to the channel. Other than that there's nothing.

what about fit emma :joker:

[michael21]

A post is not a thread :idc:

a post is a start of a thread :shocked:

[Pyramid*]

The first thread was bumped with 'i bet channel 4 bring back the MPD and put it on the same time as Big Brother ' which has nothing to do really with the OP. Also came after the member in question bumped a LOT of old threads (sorry michael, you know I love you really :p)

Second was bumped with just a :laugh3: smiley...surely you see the problem there.

Third was bumped with 'i want Sophie Reade in celebrity big brother 2011'. This has nothing to do with the marathon at all.

All three were bumped by the same user(the OP...of the bumped threads), but they deleted their bumps after the other members commented, making it look like other people had bumped them.


That's my point. The bump still generated interest - certainly one of them did - yet that seems okay - but not the others (which would have died away given the lack of interest anyway). Don't you see what I mean?

anyway: I still don't feel it's clear. Some are allowed to do it, even though it's pointless comments, and some aren't - that's all I'm saying. It's hard to know where members stand sometimes when there is disparity.

[michael21]

That's my point. The bump still generated interest - certainly one of them did - yet that seems okay - but not the others (which would have died away given the lack of interest anyway). Don't you see what I mean?

anyway: I still don't feel it's clear. Some are allowed to do it, even though it's pointless comments, and some aren't - that's all I'm saying. It's hard to know where members stand sometimes when there is disparity.

i agree 100%

[Vicky.]

That's my point. The bump still generated interest - certainly one of them did - yet that seems okay - but not the others (which would have died away given the lack of interest anyway). Don't you see what I mean?

anyway: I still don't feel it's clear. Some are allowed to do it, even though it's pointless comments, and some aren't - that's all I'm saying. It's hard to know where members stand sometimes when there is disparity.

I feel you are deliberately missing my point.

'Some are allowed to do it'...when there is actually a point in the bumping. 'Some arent'' when there is no point at all in bumping them.

[Vicky.]

i agree 100%

Hmmm...so what on earth was the reason for bumping my thread from april?

[Jordan.]

That's my point. The bump still generated interest - certainly one of them did - yet that seems okay - but not the others (which would have died away given the lack of interest anyway). Don't you see what I mean?

anyway: I still don't feel it's clear. Some are allowed to do it, even though it's pointless comments, and some aren't - that's all I'm saying. It's hard to know where members stand sometimes when there is disparity.

So do threads from 2002 but that doesn't mean we should all go bump them.

[michael21]

Hmmm...so what on earth was the reason for bumping my thread from april?

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162571&page=48 look at this thread

well the point was that thread was from this year i think but the thread in this post is very old

[michael21]

So do threads from 2002 but that doesn't mean we should all go bump them.

Jordan who are you to say what can be posted where go back to your 30 cher threads :joker:

[Pyramid*]

I feel you are deliberately missing my point.

'Some are allowed to do it'...when there is actually a point in the bumping.

'Some arent'' when there is no point at all in bumping them.

I can assure you, I am not deliberately missing any point.

How can a pointless thread, as you have said yourself you feel a thread is: be allowed to be bumped - given that there that thread has been deemed pointless. :conf:

I find the rule is unclear and I'm still no further informed than I was way back from post one.

On a side note to Michael: the one thing I will say is: if you are bumping threads then deleting your posts - it's neither big nor clever. It's actually a very good way to antagonise and annoy people.

[Boothy]

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162571&page=48 look at this thread

well the point was that thread was from this year i think but the thread in this post is very old

There's 48 pages of discussion in that thread, it's being used on a near daily basis. The thread you just bumped hadn't been posted in since April.

I'm not quite sure you understand the term 'bumping'

[michael21]

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3799016&postcount=1

jordan saying about bumping when he bump this old thread and changes the
Title

[Jordan.]

Jordan who are you to say what can be posted where go back to your 30 cher threads :joker:

Because thats an appreciation thread twat

[Jordan.]

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3799016&postcount=1

jordan saying about bumping when he bump this old thread and changes the
Title

Thats not even my thread. **** off.

[michael21]

There's 48 pages of discussion in that thread, it's being used on a near daily basis. The thread you just bumped hadn't been posted in since April.

I'm not quite sure you understand the term 'bumping'

but look at post one it was a old thread that got no replys so he changes the
Title that a bump right

[Pyramid*]

That's my point. The bump still generated interest - certainly one of them did - yet that seems okay - but not the others (which would have died away given the lack of interest anyway). Don't you see what I mean?

anyway: I still don't feel it's clear. Some are allowed to do it, even though it's pointless comments, and some aren't - that's all I'm saying. It's hard to know where members stand sometimes when there is disparity.

So do threads from 2002 but that doesn't mean we should all go bump them.


Full circle again and emphasising my point. If they still do generate interest again: where is the line drawn then?

[Boothy]

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3799016&postcount=1

jordan saying about bumping when he bump this old thread and changes the
Title



I'm not quite sure you understand the term 'bumping'

Point proven

but look at post one it was a old thread that got no replys so he changes the
Title that a bump right

What are you even talking about?

[MTVN]

This truly is an awful thread, Michael still cant seem to understand the concept of bumping a thread never mind the rules around it.

But seriously cant people just use their common sense with things like these, it's not hard to work out whether or not it's going to be appropiate to bump a thread

[michael21]

This truly is an awful thread, Michael still cant seem to understand the concept of bumping a thread never mind the rules around it.

But seriously cant people just use their common sense with things like these, it's not hard to work out whether or not it's going to be appropiate to bump a thread

so you saying its ok to bump some threads :conf:

[Josy]

so you saying its ok to bump some threads :conf:

Its fine to bump a thread if there is a good reason for doing so.

Its NOT fine to bump threads for no good reason and then delete the bumping posts afterwards.

[Glenn.]

This rebellion against TiBB is really starting getting to me.

Member always whinging about something.

[Zippy]

so you saying its ok to bump some threads :conf:

Its all about intent, not the actual bump

only post on an old thread if you have something useful to add. And DO NOT then delete your post. Really not hard to follow.

[michael21]

Its fine to bump a thread if there is a good reason for doing so.

Its NOT fine to bump threads for no good reason and then delete the bumping posts afterwards.

is there a time line to reply to threads

[Vicky.]

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162571&page=48 look at this thread

well the point was that thread was from this year i think but the thread in this post is very old

But the cher appreciation thread isnt being bumped for no reason though, People are still discussing her.
I can assure you, I am not deliberately missing any point.

How can a pointless thread, as you have said yourself you feel a thread is: be allowed to be bumped - given that there that thread has been deemed pointless. :conf:

I find the rule is unclear and I'm still no further informed than I was way back from post one.

On a side note to Michael: the one thing I will say is: if you are bumping threads then deleting your posts - it's neither big nor clever. It's actually a very good way to antagonise and annoy people.
Because to ME the thread is pointless(assuming you are talking about aristas thread?). However other people may have interest in emma. he is bumping to let people know that shes on tv at that time. Very different to bumping a 1/2year old thread with just a smiley.

[Boothy]

Michael, serious question.

Do you know what bumping is?

[michael21]

right lets scrap the bump rule as no one no what it mean going by the reply in this thread

[Niamh.]

This truly is an awful thread, Michael still cant seem to understand the concept of bumping a thread never mind the rules around it.

But seriously cant people just use their common sense with things like these, it's not hard to work out whether or not it's going to be appropiate to bump a thread

The voice of reason.

[michael21]

Michael, serious question.

Do you know what bumping is?

did you just bump this thread :joker:

[Boothy]

did you just bump this thread :joker:

No

[michael21]

No

doh

[michael21]

The voice of reason.

i no i am :hugesmile:

[Vicky.]

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162571&page=48 look at this thread

well the point was that thread was from this year i think but the thread in this post is very old

is there a time line to reply to threads

Nope. You could bump a thread from 2002 if you had reason to do so.

I will use a news story as an example...say there was a murder case on back then and there was a discussion thread on it. And today it came out in the news that some of the evidence had been tampered with or whatever. It would be perfectly fine to bump the thread as you are adding info to it. What wuld not be fine, would be bumping that thread and adding something completely pointless such as ':sad:'

[Locke.]

Oh my ****ing god

[Vicky.]

right lets scrap the bump rule as no one no what it mean going by the reply in this thread

I think the majority do understand. Seems to be just a couple who dont. Or appear not to.

[michael21]

Oh my ****ing god

no hes in the next thread down

[Boothy]

Plucking the hairs out of my testicles would be less painful than reading through this thread.

[Zippy]

Bump(internet)

To bump a thread on an Internet forum is to post a reply to it purely in order to raise the thread's profile. This will typically return it to the top of the list of active thread

[michael21]

Plucking the hairs out of my testicles would be less painful than reading through this thread.

what alll 2 of them :laugh2:

[Niamh.]

Plucking the hairs out of my testicles would be less painful than reading through this thread.

:laugh3:

[michael21]

Bump(internet)

To bump a thread on an Internet forum is to post a reply to it purely in order to raise the thread's profile. This will typically return it to the top of the list of active thread

but that could apply to a thread made yesterday :conf:

[Boothy]

what alll 2 of them :laugh2:

What a witty response.

Kudos.

[Firewire]

did you just bump this thread :joker:

No, he replied to a relevant thread. If this thread was months old and was no longer relevant, that would be bumping.

[Josy]

Plucking the hairs out of my testicles would be less painful than reading through this thread.

:joker:

[michael21]

What a witty response.

Kudos.

http://videosarchive.org/wrestling/wp-content/uploads/mvbthumbs/img_591_mr-anderson-dresses-up-as-the-old-sting-and-disco-inferno-returns-tna-impact-wrestling-26511.jpg

[michael21]

No, he replied to a relevant thread. If this thread was months old and was no longer relevant, that would be bumping.

:nono: see post 106

[Zippy]

but that could apply to a thread made yesterday :conf:

Just stop bumping old threads for no good reason. And stop deleting your posts. I can't put it simpler than that.

[Niamh.]

Just stop bumping old threads for no good reason. And stop deleting your posts. I can't put it simpler than that.

http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/citizen_cane.gif

[michael21]

http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/citizen_cane.gif

who that clapping?

[Niamh.]

who that clapping?

Zippy

[michael21]

Zippy

that man zippy :laugh2:

[Pyramid*]

I think the majority do understand. Seems to be just a couple who dont. Or appear not to.


It's called seeking clarification, and I don't see anything wrong in that. That's the point of this section of the forum is it not?

[Zippy]

http://isert.net/gif/popcorn.gif

[Pyramid*]

http://isert.net/gif/popcorn.gif

Oddly enough: it's pretty close to how I imagine you. :hugesmile:

[Stu]

I just tried a bit of the testicle plucking and I must confirm this thread is far worse.

[Niamh.]

Thread closed - I think Vicky has done a good job of clarifying the difference between pointless bumping and and bumping for a reason.