/qa/ - Questions and Answers

Keeping the community together by giving you a voice


New Teatime planned. Join us for Teatime with Alcohol this Saturday! Time and place to be announced.
* Time and place is subject to change depending on feasibility.

If you want to see the latest posts from all boards in a convenient way please check out /overboard/

Name
Email
Subject
By clicking New Reply, I acknowledge the existence of the Israeli nuclear arsenal.
Comment
0
Select File / Oekaki
File(s)
Password (For file and/or post deletion.)

901072.jpg
Bump Limits
Anonymous
No.5974
5981 5987
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.
Anonymous
No.5975
5976
When Catalog View is an option who cares what's on the first page?
Anonymous
No.5976
5977
>>5975
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.
Anonymous
No.5977
5978
>>5976
If threads had smaller bump limits would that really encourage new discussions, or new weekly general threads with links to last week's generals?
Anonymous
No.5978
5979
>>5977
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.
Anonymous
No.5979
5980
>>5978
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?
Anonymous
No.5980
>>5979
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.
Anonymous
No.5981
5982
ef9.png
>>5974
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.
Anonymous
No.5982
5983
>>5981
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.
Anonymous
No.5983
5984
>>5982
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?
Anonymous
No.5984
5985
>>5983
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.
Anonymous
No.5985
5986
>>5984
You don't view threads on "last 50 posts" mode so they load faster?
Anonymous
No.5986
>>5985
What about threads 600-800 posts ago? Can you always remember how far back they were?
Anonymous
No.5987
5988
>>5974
If it is not broken, don't fix it.
Anonymous
No.5988
5989
>>5987
I think it might be, tbh.
Was it broken before we extended it this far?
Anonymous
No.5989
5990
>>5988
It worked fine. If anything's preventing the creation of new threads, it's the fear of being told your thread idea sucks balls.
Anonymous
No.5990
5991 5992
>>5989
Yeah, it did work fine then, so perhaps extending it was unecessary.
Anonymous
No.5991
>>5990
Making new threads for unfinished topics is mildly inconvenient. A higher bump count means less of that inconvenience.
Anonymous
No.5992
5993
>>5990
>so perhaps extending it was unecessary.
And making them shorter now might be also unnecessary.
Anonymous
No.5993
5995
>>5992
It could be worth a try.
Anonymous
No.5995
5996
>>5993
Using the same argument:
It could be worth to keep them as they are.
Anonymous
No.5996
5997
>>5995
I feel like the situation could improve if the bump limit were lowered.
Anonymous
No.5997
>>5996
>I feel
I think that the way it is right now is just fine.