![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 November 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to internet forum. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Bumping is also a type of lockpicking!
I don't get it - do you need to use the word "bump" in a bump? The article makes it sound like you do.
It seems to me that some (probably trolls) use "bump" in the game to see who can be the first to post or reply to a post. Used sparingly, I can understand how it keeps threads alive in a busy forum, but the trolls are probably going to cause a crackdown by moderators. RiverviewClock 02:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Do forums in other languages also use the word "bump", is it in universal usage, or is it only on English forums?
The article talks only of posting in order to bring the thread back to attention. I'd got the impression that people often do it by the same name to get themselves attention or to increase their posting tallies - in which case it might not even be following up an existing thread. Hence "Bump Up My Post [Count]" mentioned later. -- Smjg 17:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
"To bump a thread on an Internet forum is to post a reply to it purely in order to raise the thread's profile."
This is wrong. Bump is the act of raising a thread's profile. Posting a reply in a thread is only one way of *causing* a bump. Another, way less spammy way to do it is by the option to bump a thread, present in forum systems like the one presented by InvisionFree ( http://www.invisionpower.com/community/board/index.html).
There are more than one way to bump a thread, posting is only one of them and it's incorrect to state that one of them is the definition of bump. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.50.153 ( talk) 20:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I am an avid user of forums and I have never heard this acronym before. Bumping simply means to move a thread up to the first page in order to give it attention. This acronym is never referenced again. It should either be removed or cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.89.63 ( talk) 20:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - this acronym is entirely baseless. The term bump in reference to thread-bumping almost certainly derives from the verb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.190.21 ( talk) 14:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
"Bring up My Post" is used heavily on websites like Gaia Online, NeoPets, etc. So, maybe you should do even the tiniest bit of research before you claim it's "entirely baseless". A simple Google search reveals entries of this in both AcronymFinder.com, Acronyms.TheFreeDictionary.com, and ironically enough the top result is this very article. 24.89.200.2 ( talk) 17:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I've seen the phrase "bring up my post" used occasionally, but I wouldn't say it's "used heavily" in most internet communities. I'm almost 100% certain "bump" was
backronymed into "bring up my post".--
209.172.30.114 (
talk)
16:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The word bump is used often to bump a topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.93.98.87 ( talk) 11:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I've seen posts ONLY using the word bump and nothing else.-- 99.52.197.62 ( talk) 01:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought a thread which has been permanently moved to the top of a board is one which has been "pinned" - isn't this term more common than "sticky"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.208.46 ( talk) 23:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I have been part of plenty of internet forums for a long while now, and I have never even heard of the terms "necroposting", "thread necromancy", "frankenposts", "thread necros", or "threadomancers". Can anybody verify that this is common terminology? If it is not common I would suggest that these terms be removed from the article. 68.98.153.198 ( talk) 13:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Some say, including my friend Moonie, that BUMP was never an acronym to start with, it was simply a word, NUDGE could have been used instead, but it wasn't, then one day somebody decided BUMP meant Bring (or bump) up my post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.64.208 ( talk) 22:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The citation number 1 is not working, it should be changed. 86.171.46.143 ( talk) 18:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Can we add some statement as to why some people find "bumping" disagreeable? Certainly someone who resurrects an old thread for ego purposes or trolling is bothersome, but when there is new information relevant to the thread, no matter how old it is, why would anyone protest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.88.170.32 ( talk) 09:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
As I just stated below in the "necroposting" section, there really is nothing wrong with it unless it's done for the purpose of trolling. It's just one of those things that some geeks invent terms for and label them as "bad" while other geeks follow suit instead of asking themselves "why?" 205.242.88.119 ( talk) 14:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Replying to an old thread to continue a conversation is angrily called "necroposting", and usually results in someone having a hissy fit and trying to get the thread permanently locked. Why is this? Why do people prefer a discussion to be fragmented among many different threads instead of consolidated to a Single Point of Truth? It defies logic.
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 November 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to internet forum. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Bumping is also a type of lockpicking!
I don't get it - do you need to use the word "bump" in a bump? The article makes it sound like you do.
It seems to me that some (probably trolls) use "bump" in the game to see who can be the first to post or reply to a post. Used sparingly, I can understand how it keeps threads alive in a busy forum, but the trolls are probably going to cause a crackdown by moderators. RiverviewClock 02:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Do forums in other languages also use the word "bump", is it in universal usage, or is it only on English forums?
The article talks only of posting in order to bring the thread back to attention. I'd got the impression that people often do it by the same name to get themselves attention or to increase their posting tallies - in which case it might not even be following up an existing thread. Hence "Bump Up My Post [Count]" mentioned later. -- Smjg 17:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
"To bump a thread on an Internet forum is to post a reply to it purely in order to raise the thread's profile."
This is wrong. Bump is the act of raising a thread's profile. Posting a reply in a thread is only one way of *causing* a bump. Another, way less spammy way to do it is by the option to bump a thread, present in forum systems like the one presented by InvisionFree ( http://www.invisionpower.com/community/board/index.html).
There are more than one way to bump a thread, posting is only one of them and it's incorrect to state that one of them is the definition of bump. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.50.153 ( talk) 20:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I am an avid user of forums and I have never heard this acronym before. Bumping simply means to move a thread up to the first page in order to give it attention. This acronym is never referenced again. It should either be removed or cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.89.63 ( talk) 20:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - this acronym is entirely baseless. The term bump in reference to thread-bumping almost certainly derives from the verb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.190.21 ( talk) 14:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
"Bring up My Post" is used heavily on websites like Gaia Online, NeoPets, etc. So, maybe you should do even the tiniest bit of research before you claim it's "entirely baseless". A simple Google search reveals entries of this in both AcronymFinder.com, Acronyms.TheFreeDictionary.com, and ironically enough the top result is this very article. 24.89.200.2 ( talk) 17:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I've seen the phrase "bring up my post" used occasionally, but I wouldn't say it's "used heavily" in most internet communities. I'm almost 100% certain "bump" was
backronymed into "bring up my post".--
209.172.30.114 (
talk)
16:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The word bump is used often to bump a topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.93.98.87 ( talk) 11:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I've seen posts ONLY using the word bump and nothing else.-- 99.52.197.62 ( talk) 01:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought a thread which has been permanently moved to the top of a board is one which has been "pinned" - isn't this term more common than "sticky"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.208.46 ( talk) 23:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I have been part of plenty of internet forums for a long while now, and I have never even heard of the terms "necroposting", "thread necromancy", "frankenposts", "thread necros", or "threadomancers". Can anybody verify that this is common terminology? If it is not common I would suggest that these terms be removed from the article. 68.98.153.198 ( talk) 13:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Some say, including my friend Moonie, that BUMP was never an acronym to start with, it was simply a word, NUDGE could have been used instead, but it wasn't, then one day somebody decided BUMP meant Bring (or bump) up my post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.64.208 ( talk) 22:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The citation number 1 is not working, it should be changed. 86.171.46.143 ( talk) 18:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Can we add some statement as to why some people find "bumping" disagreeable? Certainly someone who resurrects an old thread for ego purposes or trolling is bothersome, but when there is new information relevant to the thread, no matter how old it is, why would anyone protest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.88.170.32 ( talk) 09:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
As I just stated below in the "necroposting" section, there really is nothing wrong with it unless it's done for the purpose of trolling. It's just one of those things that some geeks invent terms for and label them as "bad" while other geeks follow suit instead of asking themselves "why?" 205.242.88.119 ( talk) 14:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Replying to an old thread to continue a conversation is angrily called "necroposting", and usually results in someone having a hissy fit and trying to get the thread permanently locked. Why is this? Why do people prefer a discussion to be fragmented among many different threads instead of consolidated to a Single Point of Truth? It defies logic.