Bump Old Threads or Start New Ones?

[gogatrs]

OK, obviously bumping is considered spam.
But start threads about topics that already exist, is also frowned upon.

So what do you do?
Disguise your bump?
Say "I searched, but the thread was dead"?

Is it a lesser of two evils question?

 

[AOS-]

Say "I searched, but the thread was dead"?

Lying is the worst.....

I heard you're good to go with bumping granted it was a bump made at least a day or so after the previous post. Anything sooner, is well... too soon. Have patience.

I get a bunch of ignored topics, but I never bump them.

 

[niky]

Bumping your own threads with contentless and pointless posts is frowned upon. Bumping an old thread with something off-topic or borderline nonsensical is frowned upon. Reviving old thread with a relevant observation or follow up question isn't.

 

[Northstar]

OK, obviously bumping is considered spam.

Depends how it's done, just saying "bump" or responding to a post from some time ago are probably considered spam. However just posting in a old thread with new info or something like that are fine I think.

Edit: tree'd by 2 people

 

[gogatrs]

Well, what if you had a question, but this question has already been asked, but had no specific answer.
Obviously, you can't contribute anything useful to the thread that's asking the same thing you are.
Right?

So I guess it's "bump" the old threads.

What confuses me is that, I've seen people post relevant and useful information in a previously dead thread and then say "Sorry for bumping an old thread." at the end of the post...

 

[Northstar]

Well, what if you had a question, but this question has already been asked, but had no specific answer.
Obviously, you can't contribute anything useful to the thread that's asking the same thing you are.
Right?

So I guess it's "bump" the old threads.

I would think quoting the post with the question along with a "anyone know the answer" type post would be fine.

What confuses me is that, I've seen people post relevant and useful information in a previously dead thread and then say "Sorry for bumping an old thread." at the end of the post...

I've noticed most other forum sites look at bumping of any kind in a negative way. Thankfully this isn't a usual forum.

 

[gogatrs]

I've noticed most other forum sites look at bumping of any kind in a negative way. Thankfully this isn't a usual forum.

Absolutely!
Thanks!
Although I'd like to hear a moderator's opinion on this...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Well, what if you had a question, but this question has already been asked, but had no specific answer.
Obviously, you can't contribute anything useful to the thread that's asking the same thing you are.
Right?

If the question hasn't been answered (or hasn't been answered satisfactorily), then you should be able to revive a thread without problem. Just make doubly sure that your question hasn't been answered. I was browsing another forum the other day and saw a question asked. I gave a reply, then checked back the next day. A few more people had continued the discussion, but then the person who first asked the question went ahead and asked it again because he was too lazy to check the thread.

What confuses me is that, I've seen people post relevant and useful information in a previously dead thread and then say "Sorry for bumping an old thread." at the end of the post...

That's not really bumping. Our definition of bumping states that it is the practice of needlessly drawing attetnion to a thread by posting something that is useless or irrelevant - like when someone posts "bump" in a marketplace thread to call attention to it and keep it from falling off the front page of the sub-forum. What they are doing is reviving a thread, not bumping it.

 

[gogatrs]

OK, thanks interludes.