status-done Excessive Bumping Of Threads - Spam?

[JB Lions]

Bumping of threads. I understand Sales threads but discussion threads?

35 bumps now with nothing but the word "bump"
https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...t-1-and-not-renew.1067806/page-3#post-6665885

Not a sales thread, but a discussion thread. The other day I hit new posts and saw a bunch of threads bumped with nothing but the word "bump". Again, not sales threads, discussion threads.

You have multiple people complaining about it.

So Namepros is ok with people junking up the forum?

This guy - https://www.namepros.com/members/daniel-owens.965502/

Just goes and bumps all his threads with the word bump, continually. If there is interest in a thread, it will naturally be bumped up.

Thread after thread

https://www.namepros.com/threads/go...type-domain-wrong-it-is-a-bad-domain.1074963/

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...or-free-or-even-just-1-and-not-renew.1067806/

Last 12 posts in this thread are his with the word "bump"
https://www.namepros.com/threads/domain-age-why-do-so-many-domainers-lie-about-it.1066211/page-3

 

[karmaco]

Bumping should only be allowed in the selling area. Imagine if everyone starting a regular thread started doing what he does. It disrupts the natural flow or demise of a topic and should be considering trolling.

The word bump adds nothing to the topic. Repeated posts by the OP are acceptable if they are actually saying something We have 8 latest pages not 80 and this tomfoolery should not be allowed.

 

[xeroox]

Annoying as hell specially when he received already the answer he was looking for

 

[JB Lions]

Actually, it is against the rules. The 12 hour bumps are for Sales Threads.

Here are the General Rules:

• Only post comments and questions that are relevant to the topic and contribute to the discussion.
• Needlessly short and/or noncontributory posts are not allowed except in select sections like Domain Name Requests, Meet and Greet (Networking), NamePros Blog comments, and Domain Chat.

So whoever is not taking action, doesn't know the rules.

1.14
https://www.namepros.com/threads/official-rules-of-namepros.848752/

Again, this is just 1 thread, 36 times with the word bump, it looks like:

bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump

How much more Needlessly short and/or noncontributory posts can you get? That is a 100% violation of that rule.

So at this point, Namepros rules are not being enforced.

 

[xynames]

Well my input would be the disallow BUMPs ENTIRELY on all but sales threads. All but Marketplace threads.

And as JB Lions has already pointed out, clearly Daniel Owens' posts (THOUSANDS of Bumps!) are already in violation of the rules. ALL of his Bump! posts should be purged from the forum.

Plus Daniel Owens is not only violating the rules, but per my conversation about this with him he is (1) determined to bump EVEN MORE, (2) being a wise guy about the whole thing spouting inane non sequiturs as if he doesn't understand what he is doing wrong. "Do you need a task?" indeed!

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

There are times when bumping a discussion thread makes sense, but it's not something that we want to see abused or used in excess.

We will be updating the rules once we decide on how often a discussion thread can be bumped and how it can be bumped. Please continue to share your suggestions.

We appreciate your help.

 

[xynames]

The rules already state that “Needlessly short and/or noncontributory posts are not allowed except in select sections,” i.e. the rules already state that “bumps” are disallowed in most non-sales discussion threads, so all that we need is enforcement of the existing rule. As an existing rule punishing any offenders and removing their Bump posts retroactively should be undertaken immediately.

Any new rule you impose should merely be a clarification that bumps are short noncontributory posts.

I would be violently against any new rule that eases this already existing ban on bumps in most non-sales thread. I am aware of not even one forum member other than the offender Daniel Owens who would be in favor of easing the existing ban on Bumps in most non sales threads.

 

[BrandMart]

He is probably aiming to become the forum Top poster

 

[MapleDots]

There is a time to bump in a discussion topic.

Example

Day 1
Ask a question

Day 2
No Response

Bump

Totally legit if still looking for an answer.

Now bumping like Daniel for no reason is just not necessary and disallowing a legitimate bump to a question would not be conducive to good conversation.

We have to be careful to hit a happy medium here.

 

[xynames]

MapleDots what we must be careful about is trying to fashion a rule that would be difficult to enforce. Your concept is unwieldy and would practically lead to an algorithmic approach to enforcement. [If no initial response to new thread within 24 hours okay to bump.]

We already have a rule in place no need to make this more complicated than it is. The problem is apparently moderators who don’t understand the rules because clearly what Daniel Owens has been doing for THOUSANDS of posts is needlessly short noncontributory posts that should have been removed long ago.

 

[karmaco]

He is a repeat offender no doubt. It’s bad enough to have to bypass all the daily bumped sales threads when you aren’t looking for that as @NameOmnia mentioned.
If you log in here once a day the top 8 pages do not always cover everything because of stuff like this.

 

[MapleDots]

We can always say it is allowed to bump a post when asking for a LEGITIMATE answer to a question.

All other bumps in topics are disallowed

Then again if I ask a question and don't get an answer I will usually respond to the topic and ask again, or reword the question.

I traditionally don't bump so the anti bump rule would really not affect a legitimate poster.

 

[atinc]

bump.sucks

 

[forge]

he asked me what I want from him, I said "Stop bumping" and he responded that he is more determined than ever to bump even more.

Totally annoying. Should not be tolerated.

 

[briguy]

He is probably aiming to become the forum Top poster

Lol that would take years..
https://www.namepros.com/members/

plus bringing negative attention to oneself, not a good idea (<my thoughts)

 

[xynames]

Look, let's just ban the guy Daniel Owens, I mean, he is determined to keep offending by declaring that he is committed to violating the rule even more in the future and he's a wise guy when it comes to pretending that he doesn't understand, and he has violated the rule against "needlessly short noncontributory posts" THOUSANDS of times with his Bump! in non-sales threads.

Boil that dustspeck! Boil that dustpeck! Boil! Boil! Boil!

What would happen to any of us if we violated a rule THOUSANDS of times?

 

[xynames]

Notice the alert states "not a rule violation AT THIS TIME"

Everyone may get a better result if you all would propose what you would LIKE the rule to be regarding this matter and petition for the rules to be changed. Be specific - no more than X consecutive posts by same member, single word bumps not allowed, etc

Here are the current rules:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/li...sts-conversations-etc.1047417/#section-030400
Post limitations
Limits on multiple posts by the same account ("bumps")
There are sections on NamePros in which we do not allow multiple (e.g., consecutive) posts by the same member in the same thread ("bumping") within a specific period of time. This practice is known as "bumping" because it is used to move ("bump") a thread to the top of a section's list of threads, increasing its visibility, which happens in most sections when a reply is posted in a thread.

As a result, members must wait the specified-below amount of time in-between bumps. For instance, if the bump limit is 12 hours, then at least 12 hours must pass from your previous post in a particular thread before you will be able to bump that same thread again.

Sections that limit the frequency of bumps

• Appraisal sections: 12 hours.
• Marketplace sections: 12 hours.
• Available Domain Names: 12 hours.
• Expired Domains and Expiring Domains: 12 hours.
• Free Domain Names: 6 hours
• Assorted Lists of Domains: 12 hours.
• Domain Coupons and Offers: Unlimited.
• Contests and Online Fun: Unlimited.
• NP$: 12 hours.

It occurs to me that the above rule is inapplicable - it applies to those sections only. It is a clarifying rule that limits the number of Bumps! in those sections.

So, quoting it as having something to do with this situation is inappropriate. Discussion threads are not even included in the sections for which the above quoted rule applies.

The applicable rule is:

Actually, it is against the rules. The 12 hour bumps are for Sales Threads.

Here are the General Rules:

• Only post comments and questions that are relevant to the topic and contribute to the discussion.
• Needlessly short and/or noncontributory posts are not allowed except in select sections like Domain Name Requests, Meet and Greet (Networking), NamePros Blog comments, and Domain Chat.

So whoever is not taking action, doesn't know the rules.

1.14
https://www.namepros.com/threads/official-rules-of-namepros.848752/

How much more Needlessly short and/or noncontributory posts can you get? That is a 100% violation of that rule.

So at this point, Namepros rules are not being enforced.

and JB Lions is correct, that the rule is not being enforced. THAT is the problem!

Boil that dustspeck!

 

[equity78]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

There are times when bumping a discussion thread makes sense, but it's not something that we want to see abused or used in excess.

We will be updating the rules once we decide on how often a discussion thread can be bumped and how it can be bumped. Please continue to share your suggestions.

We appreciate your help.

No, the word bump in a discussion thread, NEVER makes sense. Update your thoughts, add something. This is not a forum for preschoolers.

 

[equity78]

We can always say it is allowed to bump a post when asking for a LEGITIMATE answer to a question.

All other bumps in topics are disallowed

Then again if I ask a question and don't get an answer I will usually respond to the topic and ask again, or reword the question.

I traditionally don't bump so the anti bump rule would really not affect a legitimate poster.

Right you are rewording, adding something. Much better than just saying bump. And a lot of members will ignore someone for being lazy and just typing bump.

 

[BrandMart]

Maybe he bumped his head against the wall and his vocabulary and memory is limited to ‘bump’ only now?

He needs to see a psychiatrist asap!

 

[creataweb]

I've only noticed this problem with Mr. Owens (I'm sure others do it too though.) Usually when I check the new posts I seem to catch his bumping spree and it's halfway down the page at least.

I had to unsubscribe from any topics he started because I got so many alerts.

To be honest it seems most of his posts are just a form of trolling and being a fake news spreader. He just makes up stats and spreads them around. I think this is bad for the new folks who will believe what he's saying and make a bad choice because of it.

Most of his chat sessions are the same:

Edit to add: If you put someone on ignore it can be problematic in auctions for example. I had to do this awhile ago and missed a bid because I had the person on ignore. So unless something changed between then and today I am not sure using ignore is a working solution.

 

[JB Lions]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

There are times when bumping a discussion thread makes sense, but it's not something that we want to see abused or used in excess.

We will be updating the rules once we decide on how often a discussion thread can be bumped and how it can be bumped. Please continue to share your suggestions.

We appreciate your help.

As has been pointed out, you have existing rules, they just need to be enforced. I don't really see it as too much of a problem in the Discussion threads but when it pops up and it's an obvious case like this one, I would just handle it. The ole' warning, followed up by stronger action if they don't get the point. I think discussion threads should be genuine and again, topics that people have a real interest in, will naturally get "bumped" with real replies/discussion.

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

As has been pointed out, you have existing rules, they just need to be enforced.

The relevant rules are pending an update, and therefore, we will take the actions we deem appropriate until that time and after they're updated.

No, the word bump in a discussion thread, NEVER makes sense. Update your thoughts, add something. This is not a forum for preschoolers.

As previously stated, "We will be updating the rules once we decide on how often a discussion thread can be bumped and how it can be bumped." That statement includes the words that may or may not be used.

Furthermore, when a thread is held in moderation and then approved days after it was posted, it needs to be bumped by customer support in order for it to appear under New Posts. We do not have time to read and make a contributory post in that scenario, but the post needs to be bumped.

If you have a better template phrase to use in that scenario that applies to every type of thread, then please share it.

Thanks.

 

[atinc]

I don't get it. If the moderators are not going to listen the complains and do not take any actions based on nP user demands, than why do we have 'NamePros Comments and Feedback' section?

I believe most of the people here agrees that bumping a discussion thread is useless. It is already a written rule which is not proceeded.

It decreases the quality of the content on the discussion threads.

As previously stated, "We will be updating the rules once we decide on how often a discussion thread can be bumped and how it can be bumped." That statement includes the words that may or may not be used.

This doesn't make any sense. Why do you need to update the rules while you already have one which clearly states that it is not okay to bump a discussion thread?

 

[xynames]

Exactly why ask for feedback if you’re going to not only continue to ignore the existing rule against “needlessly short noncontributory posts” but expand the rules to now allow Bumps in discussion threads?

 

[JB Lions]

The relevant rules are pending an update, and therefore, we will take the actions we deem appropriate until that time and after they're updated.


As previously stated, "We will be updating the rules once we decide on how often a discussion thread can be bumped and how it can be bumped." That statement includes the words that may or may not be used.

Furthermore, when a thread is held in moderation and then approved days after it was posted, it needs to be bumped by customer support in order for it to appear under New Posts. We do not have time to read and make a contributory post in that scenario, but the post needs to be bumped.

If you have a better template phrase to use in that scenario that applies to every type of thread, then please share it.

Thanks.

I think people would understand the difference between a thread held in moderation, then released with a note from somebody at Namepros vs. 36 posts with the word bump or 12 posts in a row with the word bump. Not even a comparable scenario.