Who bumped that thread?

[Striek]

I think this has been discussed here before, but there should really be a record of who bumps threads. That feature has legitamite uses, but the way it is, it is too easy to abuse. Recently, a bunch of two year old and three year old threads were bumped. According to the search, the last post in each one was made by the last posting user at the time it was bumped.

And we have no idea who did it.

/edit
Just saw the link at the bottom of this thread. Couple of good ideas in there, other than posting the name of the bumper:

Perhaps even if you required say 50 posts before you could bump up threads, or a similar restriction?

From now on, only users that have actually posted in the thread, are able to bump it up.
sgsdfgdfsgfdsgdfgsdfg
ghsj

[Ennis]

http://www.antionline.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=692117&t=8756#post692117

I agree, starting to piss me off, closed a few threads but on my slow ass connection delting them would take a while and I have an essay to do. Anyway good suggesstion.

[mnstrgrl]

I'd have to add a field to the DB to hold "who bumped" info, but I for now added "This thread was bumped at (date/time)" below the AP Status at the top of the thread.

- h

(now I will sleep ... what am doing I still working on this stuff?)

[noODle]

Nice, I think the date is incorrect ;)

edit
(I bumped the thread and it said 'this thread was bumped on 12-09-2003", it disappeared after I posted so I will no bump it again :D )
edit 2:
'Can't bump a thread twice within 5 hours'
::1pacman

[MsMittens]

This thread was bumped at 12-09-2003 09:25 AM

You mean this? Hehe.. Time is ok (about 5 min slow) but the date is about a week fast. :D

[Schrodinger]

Now there are some threads I would LIKE to bump into the middle of next week .....

[mnstrgrl]

That's what I get for working late. The bump date/time should be correct now.

- h

[skiddieleet]

The time still seems to be wrong. It is 10:23 pm for me right now and this (http://www.antionline.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=252078) thread says it was bumped up and 11:14 pm. Even if it went by standard GMT it would not have been posted at the time of the bump up. It was posted at 8:49 pm GMT-6 hours. That would be 2:49 am at standard GMT. Is the bump up maybe set to your time mnstrlgrl, or is it custom to everyone's time set in their site preferences(if so it is wrong). I don't know what the problem is but I think the time is wrong, at least for me.

[MsMittens]

It's right for me. And I think mnstrgrl is in EST (albeit about 4 min slow). I think it's set to server time. :D

[steve.milner]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=251644#post692489) by mnstrgrl
(now I will sleep ... what am doing I still working on this stuff?)

In my experience sleep is important to accurate coding work - If you burn the candle at both ends you just end up making more work for yourself by writing shite.

"Rock -a- by Baby......."


Steve

[mnstrgrl]

The bump time *was* showing server time, but I changed it so now it's conforming to the same formatting used to display date/times for other items, such as post times. This means, among other things, applying users' timezone settings.

For the record, both me and the server are EST.

steve -- Me and sleep have gotten a bit better acquainted lately, but I thought candles were supposed to be burnt at both ends? ;)

- h

[steve.milner]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=251644#post696827) by mnstrgrl
steve -- Me and sleep have gotten a bit better acquainted lately, but I thought candles were supposed to be burnt at both ends? ;)

- h

I should have PMed you since this post is way of topic but:

I've just had a mind boggle designing the candle holder for that ;)

Keep up the good work - If you ever need a job in the UK our company's website is in dire need of sorting out.

Steve