I ran across this thread and I have a question.
Lynn (and Bibliophage), does this protocal still hold true?
I am an intermittant poster (and lurker) and, not having seen this post until now, have seen a lot of, “Bump” or the cuter, “bump,bump” by experienced posters and thought this was accepted form (I don’t have cites because I did not realize I would need them at this time). The confusion I have stems from there not being a real good explanation of why not to bump old threads, only only reasons why to. Also, these never offend me, indeed they are often interesting as I would have missed them had they not been bumped.
I, of course, get the ‘don’t-bump-a-whole-thread-to-correct-a-spelling-error’ thing and the other obvious reasons but what about an IMHO thread where you have a different opinion, for example? Chronos (I’m going from [my fading] memory here) said that the population here was growing rapidly, so it seems like the large number of ‘newbies’ might enjoy seeing old intersting threads especially if they had not been sufficiantly answered or if someone wanted to add to a list of something (e.g. ‘Favorite covers’).
So, has this changed since then or no? If ‘no’, then, given the reasons above, why not do it? Not arguing, just want to know.
Thanks,
Steve
It’s usually fine to bring up an old topic again, if you have something to add to it. The question is then just whether you should bump the old thread, or start a new one with a link. The only rule that everyone seems to agree on with this is that if the thread predates the Great Change and hence contains unreadable code, you should start a new one.