2
$\begingroup$

This is an example , it was revived by Community . Could not Community acquire some intelligence? The user has been inactive since "Last seen Jun 2 '15 at 23:00" , All answers have a 0 vote count and two are later, I suppose from more revivals.

I could think that an "and" combination of "ifs" like:

Long inactive user

zero upvotes or negative

"perpetual motion"

would keep this question in limbo, to keep company with the OP, for good reasons and not waste our time in futile readings.

After all a search on "perpetual" would find it if somebody is interested in perpetual motion machines.

This is an example, I am sure other logical "ands" would eliminate revivals other of useless posts.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ As a matter of fact, four Community bumps in a row. $\endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    Commented Feb 26, 2017 at 9:41
  • $\begingroup$ (That said, in this case it is sort of warranted, I think. It's much more ridiculous to have the thing turned on at all on meta.) $\endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    Commented Feb 26, 2017 at 9:41

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3
$\begingroup$

Of course it would be technically possible to make the bumping algorithm more complicated in a way that prevents it from bumping certain posts. But there is a much simpler way: upvote an answer to the post. Or if none of the existing answers is worthy of an upvote, post your own that is. (Or if the question should be closed, vote to close it and use the usual methods to bring the attention of other close voters to it.) Otherwise, the post is probably still deserving of attention, which is the whole point of bumping it in the first place.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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