How about this:
If someone is too lazy to add a half-sentence of explanatory text, why should anyone be expected to be less lazy and type in a full-sentence that answers the question?
I've been involved with this whole Internet thing for decades now (starting up an ISP in the mid 90's, consulted and now own a small hosting company) and honestly, this is the first time I have actually seen someone use "bump" all by itself in a forum post. I have seen messages stating that the user hadn't heard anything and would just bump things to get it back in the spotlight. This is fine. It forms a coherent thought and invites the potential responders to re-read the question below. Just writing "bump" is like just saying "joke" and expecting people to laugh. I think an appropriate response to a solitary "bump" would be to send a link to a University's enrollment page for the electrical engineering program. All the answers will be found there, and it takes the same amount of effort on the part of the responder to provide this URL as the person asking put into their "bump".
Perhaps I am just a grumpy old man. Perhaps I accidentally took decaf this morning and am taking it out on random Internet fora. Bah. Humbug! Humbug I say! (For the non English/Americans out there, this ia a reference to Ebenezer Scrooge in Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol"). Typing isn't difficult, and the least the "bumper" could do if he is expecting people to take the time to respond is to make an effort into expressing a coherent request. Otherwise, people who might otherwise be very forthcoming and helpful may feel taken advantage of and decide their efforts are better spent elsewhere.
Time to find some decent coffee, and to chase these young whipper-snappers off of my lawn.
/Jason
--- In electricboats@yahoogroups.com, "davidhughes_casaba" <davidhughes_casaba@...> wrote:
>
> Is the use of "Bump" "Annoying and lazy" or progressive and efficient? Personally I think the latter for its use resulted in:
>
> 1) Bringing a unanswered question back to the front,
> 2) Getting the question answered,
> 2) Educating those on the meaning of the internet slang "bump",
> 3) While providing a little humor around cryptic messages.
>
> All brought to you by the silly little word "Bump".
>
>
>
> --- In electricboats@yahoogroups.com, Matthew Geier <matthew@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > What the **** does "bump" mean? As I live in the Netherlands english
> > > is my second (third or even fourth?) language but these american
> > > slangwords mean nothing to me. Please explain.
> > > Although there are many specific american issues debated here it is
> > > still a very international group with lots of topics for everybody.
> > > Please have some mercy with us from "abroad".
> > >
> > It's not actually American specific, but it is Internet slang, and it
> > comes from people using web based message boards where the most recently
> > used message 'threads' are at the top of the page. Some one will 'bump'
> > an old topic to the top by posting a 'zero content reply', thus making
> > the thread active again, thus 'bumping' the thread back to the top of
> > the active thread list.
> >
> > Many people have taken to writing 'bump' when they want to bump up an
> > old thread in the hope that new attention will be paid to the subject.
> >
> >
> > It makes little sense on a mailing list where most people will be
> > reading messages in strict chronological order, but presumably has had
> > the desired effect of getting every one to read the original message again.
> >
> > Personally I find it annoying and lazy, but I do see it a lot,
> > particularly on message boards with high message turnover. People want
> > their message threads to stay on the first page...
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment