I've noticed that some of the questions bumped to homepage are entirely abandoned, no activity in years. Some of them are even changed due to software updates (in software development communities).

There are plenty of questions which get no attention at all, but they never get bumped (at least not after a couple of months), such as one of my own questions that had less than 10 visitors in a month.

So I wonder, what is the point of bumping a question to the homepage, when the user who asked it has already unregistered and it's been inactive for years?


Why not? Q&As aren't for the question OP only. There are plenty of abandoned questions that get lots of views and are still useful and relevant to a lot of users.

The bump to the homepage is also not primarily to get the question views but to review answers. As the notice says:

This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.

A question being abandoned by its asker is no reason not to review its answers.

  • But it's actually sending a lot of newly asked questions down. If you check WordPress developers for example, about half of the questions are bumped by community, making the newl questions get less attention. – user350935 Feb 12 '17 at 5:20
  • @JackJohansson if you use "newest" sort on /questions page, then you will almost not see questions bumped by community. – No Distraction Wizard Feb 12 '17 at 19:05

This has become an increasingly annoying "feature" on Stack Exchange which in my opinion is borderline automated necro-posting.

Posts like these have absolutely no value, especially after so many years where the potential answers or the question itself have become obsolete or there are far better duplicate threads which already dealt with the question.

Sorting by creation date is not an option (for me at least) because the default "interesting" criteria offers by far the best results in terms of topics I am actually interested in.

Isn't there a possibility to set a maximum thread age to consider it an appropriate candidate for automated homepage promotion or at least an option to completely disable showing these in the results?

  • 5
    So just vote on the answer so it won't have 0 score. Problem solved. – Shadow Wizard Jul 4 '17 at 11:42
  • 9
    If you find that question so horribly why didn't you down vote or close vote it? That would have kept it of the front-page – rene Jul 4 '17 at 11:43
  • @rene Because it's a recurring issue which keeps popping up more and more recently. I don't mind the usual housekeeping through review queues (I actually spend quite a lot of time there) but this is an automated system which I believe can be tuned a bit better or at least offer a way to completely opt out of it. – brezanac Jul 4 '17 at 11:46
  • 7
    Since the post has little or no value, it probably deserves a downvote. The bumping is giving you a chance to review it and make this determination. So go ahead. – Kate Gregory Jul 4 '17 at 12:29
  • All valid points but I still think that bumping old posts to the homepage just for the sake of late reviewing is not the best course. I'd be more inclined to support something like automatically moving them to a separate new, or even existing, review queue where users could actually be aware of them immediately instead of just relying on the homepage promotion system to dig them up. In any case I just hope someone gives it at least a thought. That's all I can ask. Thank you. – brezanac Jul 4 '17 at 14:01
  • @holodoc The problem with review queues is that they can't direct subject matter experts to posts in their area(s) of expertise. The only really good place for a question to go to accomplish that is in the question feed, because that's where users are going to find posts in their area(s) of expertise. A queue like that would just get people voting on posts without actually understanding the posts they're voting on (for the sake of getting them out of the queue or upping their review count), which would just do more harm than good. – Servy Jul 5 '17 at 15:31

You must log in to answer this question.