Scratch

joefarebrother · 2011-10-10 16:03:43

Lots of people say "bump" to get a thread to go to the top. I think, instead of this, there should be a "bump thread" button at the bottom (where you can post a reply) wich sends the thread to the top. Same effect as saying "bump", but with no posts that say bump that can waste time of anyone reading the thread.

Last edited by joefarebrother (2011-10-10 16:06:27)

luiysia · 2011-10-10 16:12:06

Another good thing that you could add is maybe setting a time limit for the bump thing, like maybe 20 minutes or so.

Chrischb · 2011-10-11 01:07:10

Ooh sounds nice, it keeps unflavorsome posts out :3

kayybee · 2011-10-11 01:19:00

Excellent idea, but I haven't seen any forums that have this feature. I hope it's possible.

And it does remove "bump" 2 times a page or so.

It should be you can only do it 1 a day, and only if it's on the second page.

veggieman001 · 2011-10-11 01:34:31

or you could just write a short doodle-dee-doo instead

ssss · 2011-10-11 03:14:39

I support, but it can only be done once the post is on the second page.

henley · 2011-10-11 06:18:38

People think the bumping system is a lot different than it actually is. The bold blue posts are the ones that have new content since your last visit to the forums. If you were to go back to the Scratch website, then immediately to the forums again, almost every post would be grey.

So bumping only pushes it to the top for you.

But it still is helpful for the case that someone were to get off before you bumped, and get back on soon afterward.

EDIT: If you still want your post to be on your ‘unread’ screen, then you could just bump the topic and delete the post. This works.

Last edited by henley (2011-10-11 06:20:10)

ssss · 2011-10-11 06:45:03

henley wrote:
People think the bumping system is a lot different than it actually is. The bold blue posts are the ones that have new content since your last visit to the forums. If you were to go back to the Scratch website, then immediately to the forums again, almost every post would be grey.

So bumping only pushes it to the top for you.

But it still is helpful for the case that someone were to get off before you bumped, and get back on soon afterward.

EDIT: If you still want your post to be on your ‘unread’ screen, then you could just bump the topic and delete the post. This works.

No it doesn't.

joefarebrother · 2011-10-11 14:08:04

kayybee wrote:
Excellent idea, but I haven't seen any forums that have this feature.

The runescape forums have this feature

LS97 · 2011-10-11 14:50:27

I don't actually agree. With the current bumps, once someone else replies after your bump, you can remove the post to keep the thread neat.

I think the button would add a lot of unnecessary bumping to the forums, just because Scratchers understand that the opportunity cost of bumping the post in words is much higher than pushing a button.

Sorry so I don't agree.

cheddargirl · 2011-10-11 15:02:42

henley wrote:
People think the bumping system is a lot different than it actually is. The bold blue posts are the ones that have new content since your last visit to the forums. If you were to go back to the Scratch website, then immediately to the forums again, almost every post would be grey.

So bumping only pushes it to the top for you.

Yep, this is it.

EDIT: If you still want your post to be on your ‘unread’ screen, then you could just bump the topic and delete the post. This works.

Actually, it doesn't. Thread ordering is still based on last post time, so removing the bump will bring it back to the original spot.

However, if there were a lot of bumps in a row or replies after the bump, you could delete the old bumps. smile

WindowsExplorer · 2011-10-11 15:12:01

bump lol!

joefarebrother · 2011-10-11 15:40:00

LS97 wrote:
I don't actually agree. With the current bumps, once someone else replies after your bump, you can remove the post to keep the thread neat.

I think the button would add a lot of unnecessary bumping to the forums, just because Scratchers understand that the opportunity cost of bumping the post in words is much higher than pushing a button.

Sorry so I don't agree.

maybe you can only bump a tread that is not on the first page.

efisher82 · 2011-10-11 17:30:00

No one should be bumping! Just post a new topic and add a link to the old. People must tend to reply to threads with fewer posts anyway, I know I do (it's less reading smile )

Update: nah... Changed my mind. I support no changes.

Last edited by efisher82 (2011-10-11 18:30:36)

nightmarescratcher · 2011-10-14 00:01:59

luiysia wrote:
Another good thing that you could add is maybe setting a time limit for the bump thing, like maybe 20 minutes or so.

+1

SheppardProductions · 2011-10-14 00:41:08

I don't agree, simply because the bump wouldn't even matter since anyone else could just push a button to get to the top of the forums, it wouldn't be as effective. I don't know, I just don't see the point in it...

sku2000 · 2011-10-16 20:22:39

Here is MY idea:
There should be a bump button, but each thread can only be bumped once per hour.

sku2000 · 2011-10-16 20:37:07

henley wrote:
People think the bumping system is a lot different than it actually is. The bold blue posts are the ones that have new content since your last visit to the forums. If you were to go back to the Scratch website, then immediately to the forums again, almost every post would be grey.

So bumping only pushes it to the top for you.

But it still is helpful for the case that someone were to get off before you bumped, and get back on soon afterward.

EDIT: If you still want your post to be on your ‘unread’ screen, then you could just bump the topic and delete the post. This works.

This isn't true.

ZeptoVex · 2011-10-16 20:41:19

tis a pretty good idea

efisher82 · 2011-10-16 22:13:15

No time limits. Why would there be?

CheeseMunchy · 2011-10-17 11:47:51

ya but it should be limited to like 10 bumps.

CheeseMunchy · 2011-10-17 11:50:03

sku2000 wrote:
Here is MY idea:
There should be a bump button, but each thread can only be bumped once per hour.

i think every 24 hours.

CheeseMunchy · 2011-10-17 11:51:09

efisher82 wrote:
No time limits. Why would there be?

if there isn't then people would bump it constintly

ProgrammingFreak · 2011-10-17 14:13:23

Maybe a button for bumping that you can press only a certain times a week. :ooo

efisher82 · 2011-10-17 15:29:32

CheeseMunchy wrote:
efisher82 wrote:
No time limits. Why would there be?
if there isn't then people would bump it constintly

What's wrong with that?

Scratch

archived forums

#1 2011-10-10 16:03:43

An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

#2 2011-10-10 16:12:06

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

#3 2011-10-11 01:07:10

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

#4 2011-10-11 01:19:00

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

#5 2011-10-11 01:34:31

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

#6 2011-10-11 03:14:39

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

#7 2011-10-11 06:18:38

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

#8 2011-10-11 06:45:03

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

henley wrote:

#9 2011-10-11 14:08:04

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

kayybee wrote:

#10 2011-10-11 14:50:27

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

#11 2011-10-11 15:02:42

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

henley wrote:

#12 2011-10-11 15:12:01

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

#13 2011-10-11 15:40:00

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

LS97 wrote:

#14 2011-10-11 17:30:00

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

#15 2011-10-14 00:01:59

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

luiysia wrote:

#16 2011-10-14 00:41:08

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

#17 2011-10-16 20:22:39

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

#18 2011-10-16 20:37:07

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

henley wrote:

#19 2011-10-16 20:41:19

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

#20 2011-10-16 22:13:15

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

#21 2011-10-17 11:47:51

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

#22 2011-10-17 11:50:03

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

sku2000 wrote:

#23 2011-10-17 11:51:09

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

efisher82 wrote:

#24 2011-10-17 14:13:23

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

#25 2011-10-17 15:29:32

Re: An alternate way to bump threads than saying bump.

CheeseMunchy wrote:

efisher82 wrote:

Board footer