questionsfeature suggestion: mod-approved bumping

vote-for2vote-against
vote-for14vote-against

You do realize everyone would bump their own question within an hour of it being posted, right?

vote-for3vote-against

bump - I'd like a sort by last post optiom

vote-for2vote-against

@inkycatz: Right, which is why I think a mod-approval would be a potentially good thing.

Though I see that creating a ton of work for the mods.

Perhaps a rule where something is only bumpable after x-time period?

EDIT: or, something is only bumpable if it has a certain number of answers; so like after a thread gets three or so replies, it no longer becomes bumpable.

vote-for8vote-against

@thedogma: But then we would need an official set of rules

vote-for2vote-against

@lichme: This is true. And exactly why I posted haha. So people can think of all the holes I've missed

vote-for3vote-against

Woot needs a formula for bumping, I propose the following:

[(Number of posts/Number of upvotes) + (Avg. # of woots of all posters in thread)^2 + c(Number of Quality Posts by original poster)] x Planck's constant

vote-for5vote-against

I evidently should get out more. What in the world is "bumping?"

vote-for3vote-against

@90mcg112: Epic fail. "Quality posts" seems to be something that exists only one the woot.com side of the world; activity on deals.woot.com and/or ATC doesn't seem to have anything to do with it.

Edit: Oh. You were making a joke?

vote-for4vote-against

@magic cave: Bumping is when a post/thread gets extra attention and gets brought up, typically nearer to the top of a list.

vote-for3vote-against

@magic cave: to add a little to @narfcake 's answer, in forums, if you post in a thread, it will typically bring that thread to the top of the page, after stickies. People often post "bump" to bring their thread (back) to the top.

Obviously, we don't want that kind of bumping, because the quality of the Question section would drop to zero.

But if there's a way to give questions that didn't get noticed a second chance, if you will, I think that would be beneficial.

vote-for3vote-against

@magic cave: Yes, hence the inclusion of Planck's constant. I suppose I could have upped the joke factor by using Avogadro's number, which is much funnier sounding. Sorry for the confusion.

vote-for6vote-against

Do you feel voting for a thread isn't enough, or are you asking for more curation?

vote-for2vote-against

@gatzby: Voting isn't always enough IMO. I've seen a few threads (not too frequently, mind) that get a decent amount of upvotes, but I go to check on it later because while I might not have been able to provide an answer, I'm still curious as to if there was one, and there end up being none.

Voting definitely helps, of course, but if it's upvoted enough to go popular, chances are it doesn't fall into the category of "not adequately answered"

vote-for2vote-against

@90mcg112: I honestly took it seriously at first as well. Luckily for me, the reply saying it was a joke had been posted by the time I saw your comment.

Horray for not making a fool of myself!

vote-for2vote-against

@thedogma and @narfcake: Thank you for your explanations. Given that info, I'd be seriously opposed to bumping, period. Without the advantage of threaded replies, the next best way (IMNSHO) to maintain reading comprehension is to keep them in chronological order.

vote-for1vote-against

@ inkycatz: My computer is a %^&* so here is a link for you. Aim higher.

vote-for2vote-against

@jsimsace: IS that cat high? I have never seen a cat be that far off!

The admins have enough to do with out bumps

vote-for2vote-against

@caffeine_dude: Yeah, I came to realize that shortly after posting.

General consensus seems to be nay anyhow. I'll just go hide quietly in the corner.

vote-for2vote-against

@thedogma: No its all good, I have said much dumber things, I went about a week and asked admins to correct my grammar in my post, they did, I was grateful but I realized I needed to pay better attention. BUT IT TOOK A WEEK!