Classify Status Update Posts Separately From Bumps

[Nestharus]

I disagree with the rule that double posts are only allowed every 48 hours regardless of the content. Every once and awhile, I'll be working on a project that is changing drastically every day for 2-4 days, and during these times, I'll do a status update on the project every day. These posts usually contain a lot of information like what's changed, what goals were met, and what goals are planned for the next day. These are definitely not spam and not the same as bumps. They are posted rather than edited in to notify users that an update has occurred.

IcemanBo said that I could just edit a post, then post, then edit, then post, but this just seems like a ludicrous workaround for a ludicrous rule : |.


Yes, it's exceptionally rare for me to post daily status updates. I have probably only ever done it twice, both for only a few days each.


My request is to classify a status update post separately from a bump. A bump doesn't contain any information and is there just to keep the post in the light so that people will eventually see it. A status update serves another purpose entirely.


For status updates, I'd like the time period to be once a day (not necessarily 24 hours).


I plan on doing things how I've always done things. I'm not abusing anything and I'm not spamming. I need a legitimate reason as to why this is bad.

 

[Ralle]

We are now talking about this in the Mod's Lobby. Thank you for bringing it up.

By the way "Once a day" is relative.

Anyway, I will get back to this thread when we have news to share.

 

[Nestharus]

We could say no more than 2 posts in a 48-hour time period. I hesitate to say every 24 hours because you may post your next update in the morning and your previous update may have been posted at 2:00 or 3:00 pm. It just gives some flexibility : ). You can also have a script that runs once a day to check for infractions of this rule. Should be simple enough. Alternatively, you could add code to go around the insert statement to make the post fail if the last 2 posts are by you and the three posts fall within 48 hours of each other. You can also add a minimum wait time of 12 hours before you may post again to a thread if the last post was by you. This is 4 hours for work and 8 hours for sleep.

These measures would also literally prevent people from double posting.

Beyond here, classifying between bumps and status updates would have to rely on reports by users still. You could do a character count to see if there is enough information in a post to merit a status update. If not, it can be counted as a bump.

These really sound like hive 2.0 features o-o.

pre-hive 2.0, we could rely on good will, good users, and reports.


Another thing that can be done is rather than preventing a user from making the post, the post can just be appended to the previous post. I hesitate to say "put out notification and append" for status updates because this can end up creating a very, very long post that is difficult to navigate.

 

[Chaosy]

Double posting is not that serious anyway, most of the time they will just be told by the community that further double posts are not allowed, basically an unofficial warning.

And I doubt anyway will report you for double posting if it's clear that both posts actually isn't some sort of spam bump.

I agree with you, but it's not something I would put high on my priority list if I were Ralle.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

Why not just exclude content-related posts from thread-authors from this rule?

Simple and effective.

If a posts contains any update on a resource that is related to the thread topic, a double post would be legit.
I've actually encountered that problem before in which I uploaded a quick emergency hotfix on a map and wanted to spread attention to possible downloaders that it was updated, but no other post was made before.

 

[Shar Dundred]

I remember having posted updates without following the bump rule a year ago and getting no problems.

 

[Ardenian]

I didn't read through the whole thread, but couldn't one refresh the thread notification once the last post was edited ? Then none would have to double post

 

[Hantoo]

I didn't read through the whole thread, but couldn't one refresh the thread notification once the last post was edited ? Then none would have to double post

But It won't notify subscriber (Didn't read the whole thing also)
Or giving notification for the edit option, Or Let the thread owner to have an option for editing post to give notification in user cp

 

[fladdermasken]

Lucky you, the debate in ML bore some fruit. i.e. there will be an amendment to the site rules soon.

OPEN THE FLOOD GATES.

 

[Roland]

Bumping should be really strict. I mean really, we need to have a zero tolerance law on this kind of rule, many kiddies like me can't resist having attention-whoring mania.
Inb4 Most hive kids ain't gonna follow that.

 

[Ardenian]

But It won't notify subscriber (Didn't read the whole thing also)
Or giving notification for the edit option, Or Let the thread owner to have an option for editing post to give notification in user cp

Uh, I meant refresh the notification for everyone once the last post is edited, expect the post owner who edited.

 

[fladdermasken]

Results are in. Site rules clause two are now updated with a second amendment concerning update posts.

Thread will be closed shortly.