-12

I dislike when the Community user bumps questions and flags them modified when no (valuable) modification was actually made.
It is no longer a problem per se since Unix & Linux SE moderators instructed me how to stop being bothered.

Could I anyhow suggest finding a way to have the Community user offering some bounty instead of bumping?
The impact of the bump would be gracefully increased and the modified statement rightfully deserved.

OK, I know, the Community user is not a real user. And, as such, does not earn any credit.
What about collecting the amount just vanishing with no profit for anyone when bounties are not awarded or awarded only in half and credit the Community user with that amount?

I cannot imagine the modification of the bot to be that hard and I'm sure this could profit to everyone.

EDIT : Following @Laurel's basic & obvious & objective calculus I had completely missed, I do realize the craziness of this feature-request. Sorry for the noise.

Improve this question
5
  • 5
    This will just cause lots of people to post low quality answers just to try and get the bounty, and degrade the overall quality of Stack Exchange posts.
    – Shadow Wizard
    Commented Aug 2, 2022 at 9:57
  • @ShadowTheKidWizard : Since answers would need to be either accepted or upvoted at least twice by other users (in order for the bounty to be awarded) that risk could be expected low.
    – MC68020
    Commented Aug 2, 2022 at 10:18
  • 6
    You'd be surprised how easy it is to get upvotes for low quality answers. :)
    – Shadow Wizard
    Commented Aug 2, 2022 at 10:19
  • @ShadowTheKidWizard : Well well… considering this very question… You could probably acknowledge that It's equally damned easy to get downvoted… ;-P No hardfeeling of course ! ;-)
    – MC68020
    Commented Aug 2, 2022 at 10:32
  • 1
    On Meta sites, of course, just think of something people won't like and you're on the sure way for a rain of downvotes. :)
    – Shadow Wizard
    Commented Aug 2, 2022 at 10:34

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
4

No, because I don't think we should have 170 bounties open at any one time (that's 24 * 7 = 168 from bumps and 2 from real users). Moreover, it's the mostly the same questions getting bumped (see how many bump notices can accumulate — this is just one recently bumped question). Also, I feel many of the questions that get bumped this way are mediocre, and the existing answers almost always are (nobody voted for them, after all).

For what it's worth, Community bumps used to "modify" the post, by adding a banner that said it was bumped (above the post in the same place where the closed banner would be). That feature is long gone, however: Where's the bump notice?

Improve this answer
4
  • We could certainly imagine a standard bump-bounty to be of a lesser value than the min allowed to normal users and sort active bounties by decreasing value. BUT ! You are indeed correct ! 24 X 7 is indeed way too much. This simple and obvious calculus I had not considered is enough for me to consider just crazy my feature request ! Thanks !
    – MC68020
    Commented Aug 2, 2022 at 11:45
  • Not to say that I would certainly myself rant against such a bloated list.
    – MC68020
    Commented Aug 2, 2022 at 11:55
  • We do have 275 bounties on Stack Overflow currently ;)
    – Justin
    Commented Aug 2, 2022 at 13:10
  • @Justin But on Stack Overflow the bump rate is four times what it is on most sites. That's 672 additional bounties (;
    – Laurel
    Commented Aug 2, 2022 at 13:20
8

I don't think it's a good idea:

  1. It wouldn't be fair to users who have to spend reputation in order to fund a bounty on another question which either doesn't have an answer or an (for them inadequate one) which is already voted on.
  2. Reputation is a rough measurement of how much the community trusts you. Getting additional reputation by a semi-random process seems contrary to that.
Improve this answer
1
  • 1/ I appreciate your objection regarding the fairness. I am sure you can get access to reliable stats that would help to objectively compare the number of occurrences of users offering bounties on another's question, the number of occurrences bumped questions received a valuable answer, the number of bounties not awarded and then objectively estimate that un-fairness. 2/ I do not consider this as a valid objection (Since the system offers incentives (badges) for voting intensively!) resulting in an indeed a semi-random process increasing reputation by, I believe, a far greater amount.
    – MC68020
    Commented Aug 2, 2022 at 10:13
7

A question bumped by Community might need be closed:

  • Perhaps it slipped through the cracks originally
  • Perhaps the rules have changed since then
  • Perhaps there are other circumstances that would require a closure

But a bump by no means should be taken as "this is a valuable question". It means "take a look at this question".

Adding a bounty is different in terms of how the system handles such questions: you cannot vote to close a question with a bounty. I cannot overstated how much I think THIS IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY LARGE FLAW IN THE PROPOSAL!

Improve this answer
2
  • Thanks & +1 for your contribution highlighting an indeed important point I had missed. Only would I add to your "it means take a look at this question" because it was modified which is actually misleading since nothing (valuable) was actually modified.
    – MC68020
    Commented Aug 2, 2022 at 10:47
  • 1
    Well, if already going there, it should be easy enough to add exception in the code that "bump bounty" doesn't prevent question from being closed (e.g. check if the user id of the bounty owner is -1). But yeah, I do agree with what you wrote.
    – Shadow Wizard
    Commented Aug 2, 2022 at 11:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .