this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2022
6 points (100.0% liked)

Lemmy

12729 readers
6 users here now

Everything about Lemmy; bugs, gripes, praises, and advocacy.

For discussion about the lemmy.ml instance, go to [email protected].

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
6
Should bumping be a feature? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Whenever I post a question in reddit or stackoverflow that doesn't get a response, I usually delete it and post it again the next day. Because posts that don't get any attention soon after being posted are definitely not going to get it days later. If it's allowed people are going to do it here too. To avoid it I was going to open an issue asking for bumping as a feature but I've read that @dessalines doesn't like necrobumping.

In the issue, I was going to say that bumping could be set by the admins on each instance, with numbers for the days and 0 being not allowed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 years ago

You mention some quite different kinds of sites. Reddit and Lemmy are more social in nature. The value is less in searching the history for answers to common questions than in hanging out, joking around, sharing ephemeral links.

StackOverflow tuned their platform to the Q&A use case so I feel like they should have discouraged reposting in some way. If the question is a good one, many others will search for it later and some will have solutions to add.

Sounds like it's kind of handled with Dessalines comment but given what I wrote above. No, unless...

Here's where taking a more expansive and experimental view of open source can come into play. If you want toallow necrobumping, then I would ask what problem it solves. If that is a valid problem, then by all means fork Lemmy, add that as a feature to your instance and try it out. If it works, then you'll have proven its value or lack thereof with its chances of being added upstream either bolstered or rightfully crushed.