Has anyone else had the feeling like the bump limits on this site are too high? They're much higher than those of other sites like /pol/ and /mlp/. On /mlpol/ threads stay up for years at a time, and I feel like it's broken the spirit of our old "no generals" policy. Maybe it would be healthier for discussion to have lower bump limits and simply have Anons make new threads when old ones hit their limit, to prevent stagnation.
I think they've been extended twice before since the start of this site on request by some Anons who were in certain long-standing threads, but i feel like that might have been detrimental in the long term.
When Catalog View is an option who cares what's on the first page?
It's not really an issue of what's on the first page, but threads just staying up for too long and basically becoming generals.
If threads had smaller bump limits would that really encourage new discussions, or new weekly general threads with links to last week's generals?
I think it would encourage fresh discussion, with Anons replying to posts made the same week, rather than 7 months to two years ago.
Really just food for thought. It is worth noting that the bump limits are abnormally high on this sight compared to various other chans. I wonder if that's actually been good for us or not.
Intellectual discussions take longer to finish.
I bet if a "Is Fallout Equestria shit?" thread was started on /mlp/ it wouldn't go anywhere interesting. A few fanboys might argue with people who abandoned the fic 1-10 chapters in. Someone might say "Read until they get on the train then stop". Would anyone take the time to analyze it chapter by chapter, page by page, paragraph by paragraph for its literary value, flaws, and missed opportunities?
How long something takes to finish and how many posts a single thread needs to have are a different thing. Posters could always make new threads.
Long threads staying up for years is also good, specially generals as they function like a vault for content. For example the book and music threads.
Couldn't the threads just be remade when they hit bump limit though?
Bump limits exist for a reason. Refreshing at a healthy rare is part of what make a chansite functional. It also makes it so that undesirable threads slide as new threads are made and people stop recreating the old.
Imagine if the bump limit was too small. How many discussions would be rehashed in the weekly thread for each unfinished discussion and unresolved argument?
An overly small bump limit would be harmful but an overly large bump limit would barely be noticed. How many threads actually last long enough to hit bump limit and require links to previous thereads?
I'm not saying the bump limit should be tiny. Just that it might be a little too big right now. It's not like having bump limits too small were the root causes of dysfunction on /mlp/ or /pol/.
Also, what's wrong with links to previous threads? It's easier than sifting through threads thousands of posts long.
You don't view threads on "last 50 posts" mode so they load faster?
What about threads 600-800 posts ago? Can you always remember how far back they were?
If it is not broken, don't fix it.
I think it might be, tbh.
Was it broken before we extended it this far?
It worked fine. If anything's preventing the creation of new threads, it's the fear of being told your thread idea sucks balls.
Yeah, it did work fine then, so perhaps extending it was unecessary.
Making new threads for unfinished topics is mildly inconvenient. A higher bump count means less of that inconvenience.
>>5990>so perhaps extending it was unecessary.
And making them shorter now might be also unnecessary.
Using the same argument:
It could be worth to keep them as they are.
I feel like the situation could improve if the bump limit were lowered.
I think that the way it is right now is just fine.