30 Day Rule

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.

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.

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. Originally Posted by ANONONE

Thanks for the clarification.

I misinterpreted post 27 in the following thread:

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

My bust. Sorry.

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.