Quite often some old questions are bumped for various reasons.
- They are edited to correct minor typos, punctuation, adding links, adding a more informative title etc.
- They are retagged - e.g. for the reason they were incorrectly tagged or for the reason that we are in process of removing some tags.
Improving old posts is a good thing - this seems to be general consensus, see e.g. the discussion here: When does editing become over editing? Similarly, having the questions correctly tagged is useful.
But we also must be careful not to flood the front page with old posts, bumped only because of some minor edits or retags. Many people have complained about this (both in the past and very recently).
I believe it would be useful to have at least some rough criterion, based on which the users doing retags and improving old posts can decide whether they can do the edit or it would be better to wait.
- How many bumped old questions in the pages with most recent activity would be too much? How much are you willing to tolerate?
I did not open a separate thread for meta; where the criterion should probably be different - because of the different nature of meta and because of the fact that it has much less posts. I think it's ok to give your opinion about bumping at meta here.
DISCLAIMER: It is not always easy to notice the bumped old questions among other active questions - but I don't want to discuss this problem here. (If needed, we can open a separate thread for that.) The purpose of this thread is only to give some reasonable suggestions about the quantity of bumps to people who want edit/retag old questions.
TERMINOLOGY: For the purpose of this thread, let us say that a bumped old question means a question bumped because some improvement of an old post (older than a week) or because of retagging. If a questions is bumped because of new answer or because of a major addition to an answer/to a question, it is a completely different thing.