Bumping Etiquette: re Domain Auctions vs Sales

[drmaximus]

I have an ongoing domain auction and had deliberately chosen to be conservative, bumping it only once during a time period of 35 hours. Yet it was immediately frowned upon and given a gentle nudge by IT_web_team.

What is the true bumping rule on DNF? I read the sticky and it only indicated a no bumping rule for domain sales, not for auctions.

Suggestion: Domain sales and domain auctions are different in nature. The latter should be accorded reasonable and conservative bumping privileges since it is an ongoing event with a closing time.

In that sense, all posts should be allowed some reasonable degree of bumping. Imagine this: users are allowed one domain sale post per 24 hours. If not allowed to bump a previous sale thread, what is to stop them from re-posting the same sale on a new thread 24 hours later? The end product - the forum is free from bumps, but cluttered with numerous repeat sale threads with the same offerings.

My $0.02

 

[Leading Names]

"Do not "bump" your sale threads with the word "bump" or no relevant information. All replies to your own threads in sales MUST contain information pertaining to the sale. Do not use sneaky bump tactics like "If you PM me, post in the thread that you PMed me". There are too many bump tactics to list, so just don't try any of them.”

Your reply "All PMs have been replied to. Please do keep the bids coming in." doesn't look like a violation of that rule to me, especially as it had been 24+ hours since you had last posted.

- Rob

 

[Bender]

Your reply "All PMs have been replied to. Please do keep the bids coming in." doesn't look like a violation of that rule to me.

I have to disagree.
That text does not add new, relevant info for the sale.

There are too many bump tactics to list, so just don't try any of them.

 

[drmaximus]

Nonetheless, I am suggesting that some reasonable and conservative bumping right be accorded to all sale and auction threads, for the reason(s) mentioned in the OP, ie. no bumping = possible repeated sale threads

Moreover, the rules described here http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=106231
mention no "blatant and deliberate attempts"... which suggest to me that the moderators and owner(s) already allow some "fair" and "non-blatant" degree of bumping.

The discussion is thus: what is considered "fair", "conservative" and "reasonable" bumping?

(0) No bumping whatsoever
(1) Once per 24 hours
(2) Once per 36 hours
(3) Once per 48 hours... ad nauseum

I warmly invite some input and discussion from moderators and owner(s), unless they are all out playing in the snow... like I soon will! Cheers.

 

[Leading Names]

I have to disagree.
That text does not add new, relevant info for the sale.

"All PMs have been replied to. Please do keep the bids coming in."

is new, relevant info IMO

- Rob

 

[Bender]

Rob, let's analize:

All PMs have been replied to. Please do keep the bids coming in

2 sentences.
sentence one:

Please do keep the bids coming in

This sentence brings nothing new and/or relevant.In fact this is one of the most used bumping methods.

All PMs have been replied to.

PM's replied...
you either:
- sent a PM to the user, in wich case he replied and you KNOW this already(you received a "new private message on DNF" email, and you see "Unread messages:1" when you visit DNF)
-did not sent a PM , and you do not care if the user replied to others(it's a sale in fact, and the seller must treat his potential buyers with care).
See, there is no relevant,new info here after all.
Daniel

 

[Leading Names]

Analyze This :-D

- Rob

 

[Bender]

1)you probably noticed the long period between the posts.
2)the bumping rule was added sometime after that
3)not relevant to our discussion here.

 

[drmaximus]

...
3)not relevant to our discussion here.

Correct. And for the record, I am not complaining about IT_Web_Team's comment on my auction thread. It just made me think, which led to my suggestion of allowing reasonable and conservative bumping for auction threads. The latter is the only relevant subject in this thread.

The reason for this thread, and what is relevant here, is what the rules are... going forward.

...
1)you probably noticed the long period between the posts.

... which suggests an indication that, previously, a bump is reasonably permitted after a "long period" between posts. What about now?

Once again... what is the bumping rule for sales and auctions?
Flat out NO BUMPING? Or within 24... 36... 48 hours?

 

[Leading Names]

I know it's not the best post in terms of new information but the rules are by no means clearly defined.

That post, posted nearly 36 hours since his last post should have been allowed to slip, over zealous moderating on your part IMO.

Just look through the sales forums and you will find many similar posts. I think most moderators here tolerate limited bumping as long as they don't use the word "bump" in their post.

- Rob

 

[drmaximus]

I know it's not the best post in terms of new information but the rules are by no means clearly defined.

That post, posted nearly 36 hours since his last post should have been allowed to slip, over zealous moderating on your part IMO.

Just look through the sales forums and you will find many similar posts. I think most moderators here tolerate limited bumping as long as they don't use the word "bump" in their post.

- Rob

My sentiments exactly. For rules to work fairly, they have to be definitively defined and respected. True, moderation is indeed tedious work and largely a judgement call, but this job can be largely aided by well-defined rules which do not exist currently, unfortunately.

Obviously, more than 1 bump in 24 hours is rude. But a bump every 36 hours or 2 days, is IMHO fair and should be tolerated.

 

[Leading Names]

Correct. And for the record, I am not complaining about IT_Web_Team's comment on my auction thread. It just made me think, which led to my suggestion of allowing reasonable and conservative bumping for auction threads. The latter is the only relevant subject in this thread.

The reason for this thread, and what is relevant here, is what the rules are... going forward.

These are the rules (as posted in my first post)...

"Do not "bump" your sale threads with the word "bump" or no relevant information. All replies to your own threads in sales MUST contain information pertaining to the sale. Do not use sneaky bump tactics like "If you PM me, post in the thread that you PMed me". There are too many bump tactics to list, so just don't try any of them.”

http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=77923

- Rob

 

[drmaximus]

ie. Flat out no bumping whatsoever, in the absence of "new, relevant information"...?

If that's the case, wouldn't you imagine it leading to a worse situation in which one creates a new thread every 24 hours offering exactly the same domains for sale? That's not bumping by definition, and still within the 24 hour rules for new threads.

 

[SirSpider]

...PM's replied...
you either:
- sent a PM to the user, in wich case he replied and you KNOW this already(you received a "new private message on DNF" email, and you see "Unread messages:1" when you visit DNF)
-did not sent a PM , and you do not care if the user replied to others(it's a sale in fact, and the seller must treat his potential buyers with care).
See, there is no relevant,new info here after all.
Daniel

Here's a "for instance" - A couple weeks ago I did send a PM to a seller. Next day he posted "All PMs replied to." --> But somehow he skipped my inquiry, so I contacted him a again and consequently did receive an answer. In this case the posting was relevant information. To me, anyway.

Here's thought #2: After 24-36 hours without a sale, would it be all right to post to reduce the price a bit? If so, how little of a reduction would be acceptable...

 

[Honan]

So the result is that a DNF only auction has been cancelled due to pedantic interpretation of general forum rules
Never mind that more than half the auctions posted break the specific rules for auctions

 

[GiantDomains]

Adam will be updating the bump rule tomorrow.

 

[drmaximus]

Adam will be updating the bump rule tomorrow.

Hi,

Could you assist by pointing to the new/updated rule? I checked some relevant posts but found nothing new. Or maybe there's just been a delay. Let us know, thanks.

 

[GiantDomains]

Adam will post soon.

 

[furca]

The only way to stop this would be to place a "New Bumping At All" rule. :]

 

[A D]

Ok here is my opinion as I posted in the mod room a few minutes ago:

This is in discussions in the mod room so nothing is final yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Here is my view on bumping then I will explain it.

I believe we should have a NO bumping at all rule and here's why:

If I post adamdicker.com today and it slides to the bottom then the users are telling me they have no interest in this domain. So why on earth would we let the user "bump" it back to the top ahead of new strings that are posted when nobody was interested in it in the first place and probably won't be interested in it after the "bump". To me it's like the user is just getting extra publicity or advertising for a crap name that nobody wants to see in their top 50 strings anyways.

Second, I think we need to put an end also to the ridiculous "Sent PM" posts as well. Who does this benefit?

Only the thread starter as he/she gets more advertising in their thread because it gets "bumped" back to the top for nothing. Does the thread starter need this, no. They get a popup box telling them they get a PM, so to me these are more useless bumps that serve no real purpose.

I for one would rather see new threads at the top of todays' posts than old junk and bumps people had no interest in reading the first time, let alone the second or third.

Feedback welcome.

-=DCG=-