Talk:Bump (Internet)

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.

Yes I was wondering the same thing after reading this. The article seems to imply the word bump is required. And presumbly the person who started the thread would be the one to bump it? The article does not specify this though. If someone else replies, then wouldn't that just be the normal situation or replying to something? Asa01 05:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, imo it's not necessary. Making a post like "anyone?" is also a bump. What I was gonna comment on was that BUMP could be a recursive backronym too, BUMP Up My Post. MrKode

I find it common that someone will actually use the term "bump" in their post while bumping it on less professional forums. Bumping using the word bump is much more common in gaming forums than in medical forums, for instance. 68.98.153.198 (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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?

German: schieb("push, shove") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.7.29 (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"bump" is commonly used in Swedish forums (there is no other common word for it, I think). Bumping is usually seen as something very bad, especially if the post contain nothing else than "bump". But it was more common a few years ago, when "netiqette" wasn't moderated as hard on the internet. 81.226.215.80 (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction?

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)

I completely agree. I fail to see any purpose of the bump defined in this article. I have always consider bumping the act of raising one's own posting count rather than raising a thread. i mean, the bumper has obviously dug up the thread to begin with. Why not dig it up when there's something substantial to write? This article clearky needs to be rewritten.

Jens Persson (90.231.244.42 (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC))

Bump vs. Ways to bump

"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)

Bring Up My Post?

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..

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)

Sticky threads?

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)

Definitely not more common, but both terms are often used and understood by internet communities, and are interchangeable. I have found 'sticky' to be more common, but that is just my experience. I believe that the term "pinned" was the first term used to refer to posts that automatically stay on the first page, preceding the term "sticky". 68.98.153.198 (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, "sticky" is used much more than "pinned". Sticky is the actual name in many forum interfaces. 81.226.215.80 (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.208.46 (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Bump Terminology

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)

I have encountered 'necroposting' and 'thread necromancy' being used, and have used variations on the latter myself. The others I am not so familiar with. That section of the article is already tagged with a request for references to support the terminology, although the template was added some time ago. Obviously such a template shouldn't remain indefinitely, but what is a reasonable amount of time to wait before removing unreferenced material? 78.33.70.38 (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Was BUMP made into an acronym after the event ?

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)

• Agree. I would like to second the assertion that is a folk etymology - not only is there little evidence, but surely a better acronym than the sloppy 'Bring up my post' would have been used? Perhaps the page ought to have an etymology section that debates this issue and admits that there may be some controversy. Bump. Oliverbeatson (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation not working

The citation number 1 is not working, it should be changed. 86.171.46.143 (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with it, then?

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)

necroposting

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.

I agree with you. When you ask around about "necro bumping," people say it's a bad thing. Says who? Who wrote the rule that says bumping old threads is wrong? In my opinion, if you don't want old threads bumped, the moderator/admin needs to clean up the forum and remove old threads. Instead, those moderators ban (or other random actions) posters for this. It seems like a monkey see, monkey do type of behavior. Many people find appropriate threads when they google information. Why create a whole new thread when many comments, ideas, suggestions or questions have already been made in a prior thread? 205.242.88.119 (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)