Since I like to help I often click on the link for forums with 0 replies. This is supposed to come up sorted by date.

I've noticed however that many forums will show today's date (or a just a later time) than when I first saw them. This means that to find NEW forums with 0 replies I have to scan through many that I've already seen and decided I couldn't help with.

Is it possible the date/time stamp on these messages is being updated just by the most recent "view"? Since they are in fact "0 replies" obviously it is not due to replies and I'm not seeing "edited ..." at the end so I don't think the authors are forcing them to update.

Can this be fixed? Having it this way means one is less likely to scan the multiple pages just to find the threads that truly are new that he/she might be able to help with.

It's by design and is supposed to stop people just posting "bump". It 'auto-bumps' after a set period.

It seems to me that whatever problem it appears to solve it still creates the one I noted. Some users aren't going to get helped that might otherwise have been simply because their message is buried amongst other older threads.

Anyway thanks for taking the time to respond.

It stops working after (IIRC) 24 hours. It was put on by popular demand and is designed, as I said, to stop people ftrom needlessly removing their own thread from 0 replies by posting "bump" or "anyone?".

Memberes who only browse the 0 replies forum were becoming annoyed that threads were being lost from the list.

I seem to recall that there were 2 auto-bumps, one after 16 hours and the second after 32 hours. The intention was that wherever a member may live, those intervals would maximize the chances that members on the other side of globe would likely see the post, if it were still in the zero reply status.

The post's timestamp is not affected by an auto-bump

It is indeed 16 and 32 hours. The post timestamp is impacted, while the thread timestamp is not.

--jeremy

*Homer Simpson voice*

D'oh!

*J.W. slaps his forehead in embarrassment*

J.W.

After further review, I was absolutely incorrect. The thread timestamp is impacted, while the post timestamp is not. Thanks david for pointing out my error.

--jeremy