10 Characters and Buy-Sell-Trade

(ClockMonsterLA) #22

I’m not sure what “actively bumping” means in this context. Isn’t it sufficient for the topic to reappear at the top of the list (which couldn’t have happened if the OP wasn’t actively doing something to keep it alive)? The point is to keep it in front of eyes, to not let it scroll off and disappear. Adding noise in the form of “bump” messages just makes the topic annoying to follow, IMO, whereas editing the last post achieves the same goal without compromising the signal-to-noise ratio.


Even though editing brings the topic back up it’s possible everyone seeing it may not realize the OP is the one that made it happen. I see your point though.

(ClockMonsterLA) #24

Yeah, I’m not sure it really matters how or why a BST topic reappears at the top, just so long as it does and doesn’t get lost/forgotten. I think it is enough to simply make people aware of the BST each day so any interested buyers/sellers/traders that didn’t see it before will know about it.


That is true, except one of the rules of user interface design is that features which are “hidden”, and not easily discoverable by people trying to accomplish the goal … tend to lead to a lot of (avoidable!) confusion over time.

The best UI features sort of illustrate “how” do to something when you see them, or try to use them. Last post edit bumps definitely fail this test in a big way.

(ClockMonsterLA) #26

Okay, but then add some sort of visual indicator that the latest post has been edited, so as to satisfy UI philosophy. But adding noise to the topic is really not the answer.


That visual indicator already exists and has since inception :wink:

Hint: the fact that you’re saying this, illustrates the difficulty!

({John15}) #28

I think you’re missing the point that I was trying to make. As usual.

My point was that even though the way we communicate over various mediums is different, we are still communicating. There is literally no other form of communication that I can think of where we have a minimum character stipulation on responses.

Having a minimum character rule changes the organic flow of a conversation in situations where a single word or phrase less than 10 characters can communicate effectively; weather typing a response in a forum, text messaging, over the phone or face-to-face.

At any rate, it’s not a problem anymore. A four-letter minimum is much easier to accommodate than a ten-letter minimum.


Interesting! So I can have a face to face conversation with you where I only reply in grunts … or absolute silence? Or is there maybe in fact a real world “character stipulation” to actual conversations?

({John15}) #30

You are obviously not a married man, lol. Grunts and silence can be extremely effective forms of communication in the right context hahaha

And again, totally missing my point. I don’t know why you have to take what I’m saying to such a ridiculous extreme just because it doesn’t agree with your opinion.


Jeff, does your software offer a “Bump” feature? Most all the forums I frequent have a BST and they all have a button that allows the poster to bump his thread, doesn’t add anything to the thread, it just puts the thread to the top. Benefit, you don’t see a long string of “Bumps” and it also does not allow the person to bump more than once in a 24 hour period.

Maybe should post a separate thread, but with all this talk going back to the BST thought I’d ask here.


Possibly; I think what I’d like to see first is a feature that causes edits to the first post to always bump the topic as well. Then what you describe could be implemented as a button that commits some trivial automatic edit to the first post, with a time check.

To my mind, the issue with last post edit bumps is that the OP doesn’t always control the last post, which makes it more difficult than it should be.


It’s a question of incentives. If you incentivize the lazy behavior, you get … laziness.

({John15}) #34

But that’s totally baseless! You’re calling us lazy because we don’t always have a full lengthy response to somebody while still striving to be cordial or friendly or to poke fun?

This is a forum for a very specific thing. The only people here are people who are interested in yo-yos and Yoyo things. If there is a topic for discussion, we will discuss. I think that’s obvious.

Again, I don’t understand why you have to take an opposing stance and twist it into something so extremely ridiculous as to discredit it completely. It’s really not that weird what I’m suggesting. That people can communicate effectively with fewer than 10 characters.


I’m not calling you lazy :wink: You wrote an entire massive guide to stringmaking on a smartphone keyboard!

You can, but that shouldn’t be the norm, and it shouldn’t be encouraged. Just like a conversation where most of your replies are grunts or silence… is that a good conversation? I think it’s fair to note in a “just in time” manner that a reply of…


is inferior to

Yes, because sometimes lube could seep into the silicone response pads and cause the adhesive to weaken over time.



Isn’t inferior to

Boy that really made me laught out loud.


So uhh… you know anyone that can make that happen? :slight_smile:


I’d argue an animated gif is superior to both of those response options, while we’re at it

(ClockMonsterLA) #39

Agree with this. Something that performs a “bump” operation without forcing the OP to add useless “bumppity-bump” posts to his/her topic is all I’m really looking for.


And on the other side of the coin of “long posts aren’t necessarily better” there is always @yoyodoc :wink:


({John15}) #41

Your logic seems rather dictative. Do you really think you have a right to impose how other people communicate with one another?

But you are, because I’m suggesting that character count stipulations stifle the flow of organic conversation.

Maybe for you, because you prefer to communicate that way. Other people might find a simple “Yes” to be sufficiently effective as a response. And an attentive, intelligent reader will understand what that “Yes” implies; given the context of the conversation.