30 Day Rule

[NormalBob]

This is my least favorite ECCIE rule.

It is too binary.

People should be able to exercise common sense and bump a thread that may have been dormant in excess of 30 days as long as the bump relies on the relevancy of the previous posts within the thread.

Starting a new thread isn't a good approach in some cases because the brain trust in the original thread is lost as it rolls off.

I prefer common sense to hard and fast rules whenever possible.

[ANONONE]

Who told you that?

There is NO ECCIE rule on bumping on general threads that are thirty days or older. There is only a rule about bumping ads and reviews that are thirty days old.

St. Christopher has been very vocal about this.

There is no expiration date.

[NormalBob]

Originally Posted by ANONONE

Who told you that?

There is NO ECCIE rule on bumping on general threads that are thirty days or older. There is only a rule about bumping ads and reviews that are thirty days old.

St. Christopher has been very vocal about this.

There is no expiration date.

Thanks for the clarification.

I misinterpreted post 27 in the following thread:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=9899

My bust. Sorry.

[jackfengshui]

The 30-day "age limit" in ECCIE applies only to bumping old review threads (see Guideline #13 in http://www.eccie.net/announcement.php?f=5). For non-review threads, there is apparently no hard-and-fast rule. We should use our own judgment on whether it is better to start a new thread or bump an old one.