Whenever an old post is edited on a Stack Exchange site, the entire page is bumped to the top of the active page. Some eagle-eyed users might spot other spelling, formatting or grammatical issues on different answers and also decide to fix these issues.
For some time now, I have seen the following message by an assiduous editor on several Stack Exchange sites.
(While we are at it.) yes, I did not bump it (that was by a question edit!)
Other parenthetical variations include (that was by a new answer)!, (that was by an answer edit)! and (for some reason this was on the main page today - new answer added that was later deleted or kicked by the automatic process?)! [sic]
Here the editor is saying they are not to be blamed for bumping an old post to the top because the event was caused by someone else editing the original question. In other words, the most recent edit is not responsible for bumping it back to the top.
Why I think the edit message is confusing
I once commented saying that I think the message should actually read:
No, I did not bump it.
But the comment was steadfastly ignored. In my view, someone replying "yes" suggests that the author/editor did cause the post to bump to the front page.
Q: Did you edit/bump the post?
- Yes [I did bump it]
- No [I didn't bump it]
The only time a “Yes, I did not bump it” would make sense (in my view) were if the speaker had responded to the following observation
Commenter: I know you didn't bump the post.
Editor: Yes, (you're right) I didn't bump it.
This silly issue has never been picked up by anyone, and I feel I am alone in seeing the editor's summary and silently groaning. Nonetheless, I can stand it no longer. Should the message read “No, I didn't bump it” or “ Yes, I didn't bump it”? I need to know. Please.
Older Questions on ELL
I would love to see a question that answers my dilemma, but I'm afraid none replicate the situation which I have described. The edit summary is not in response to a question, it explains why a seven-year-old question is now at the top of the active page. I would like a definite answer that explains why the summary is erroneous (if indeed it is).