Dynadot

status-done Excessive Bumping Of Threads - Spam?

NameSilo
Watch
Status
Not open for further replies.
Impact
34,414
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
 
Last edited:
12
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
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 wasn't talking about staff, I was talking about the thread starter.
 
2
•••
2
•••
We can always say it is allowed to bump a post when asking for a LEGITIMATE answer to a question.

Rules must be objective. This well meaning proposed criteria is unfortunately far too subjective and could never be enforced efficiently.

Lest we forget there is already a rule proscribing “needlessly short noncontributory posts” - for the fifth time mentioned now in this thread, why hasn’t it been enforced to delete Daniel Owens’ “Bumps!”?
 
Last edited:
3
•••
0
•••
0
•••
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.
There are filters on the New Posts page that allow you to view only Domain Discussions and no sales threads, along with other options. We recommend using those options when applicable to your interests.

what Daniel Owens has been doing for THOUSANDS of posts is needlessly short noncontributory posts that should have been removed long ago.
This thread is about bumps in discussion threads. The majority of his bumps are in the marketplace. He does not have anywhere near 1,000 bumps in discussion threads.

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?
We listen, and we've made many changes thanks to member feedback. However, the decision is ultimately ours, and we will not always agree.

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.
In the majority of cases, we agree. As we've explained, there is at least one scenario in which it is necessary, and therefore, we need to figure out how to avoid bump abuse while allowing it in the scenario(s) that are necessary.

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?
Explained in this post: https://www.namepros.com/posts/6668759/

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.

Here's a helpful and relevant excerpt from our help guide:
Note: There is still an easy way to view posts of people you ignore by using the "Show Ignored Content" link whenever you want, such as in the marketplace, where it is sometimes necessary (e.g., to know if you were outbid in an auction).
 
1
•••
we need to figure out how to avoid bump abuse while allowing it in the scenarios that are necessary.
In the meantime, we are going to clean up obvious bump abuse. Give us a couple days, and if you still notice any "bump" text with nothing else written in the discussion post, then please Report it.

Thanks for your help.

Update: Rule 1.14 has been updated, which addresses the purpose of this thread. If anyone has a suggestion for the new rule or wants to recommend a modification to it, please start a new thread. Thanks.

Thread Status: Resolved and closed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
3
•••
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back