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.
/qa/ - Questions and Answers
Keeping the community together by giving you a voice
File (): AEA4B5F8B917AEE37ED1D22D09601D13-43742.jpg (42.7 KB, 358x198, 901072.jpg)
>>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.
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.
>>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?
If threads had smaller bump limits would that really encourage new discussions, or new weekly general threads with links to last week's generals?
>>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.
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.
>>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?
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.
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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
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.
>>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?
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?
>>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.
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.5986
>>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.
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.5991
>>5990
Making new threads for unfinished topics is mildly inconvenient. A higher bump count means less of that inconvenience.
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.
>so perhaps extending it was unecessary.
And making them shorter now might be also unnecessary.
File (): C9116D679180B08078BA45579CE11537-959580.gif (937.1 KB, 450x252, 162421352.gif)
>>5996
I understand the sentiment, however, the solution, I don't think, is to impose technological restrictions to achieve these ends, those ends being more satisfyingly achieved alongside a bit more of a gracious disposition when it comes to posting new threads that have been at a minimum competently constructed. Most of the time when I start new threads I take a viewpoint agnostic approach and say little, which usually avoids flak, and then for the first post after OP I can kick it off with what I think about the issue at hand to start the discussion. However, I will say that posting a half-baked idea and looking for feedback can result in petty namecalling that at best gets us nowhere, and more often than not DOSes threads, and likewise and more importantly the minds of otherwise well-to-do poners from actually thinking about what's being proposed or asked about, how good or bad of an idea it is notwithstanding, and I see it (at least the current frequency of the utterance of "faggot," among other insults) as a relic of the early days of 4chan that I'd rather leave behind, see pic related for exhibit A. Agree with someponer or don't, just please be cool and polite about it.
I understand the sentiment, however, the solution, I don't think, is to impose technological restrictions to achieve these ends, those ends being more satisfyingly achieved alongside a bit more of a gracious disposition when it comes to posting new threads that have been at a minimum competently constructed. Most of the time when I start new threads I take a viewpoint agnostic approach and say little, which usually avoids flak, and then for the first post after OP I can kick it off with what I think about the issue at hand to start the discussion. However, I will say that posting a half-baked idea and looking for feedback can result in petty namecalling that at best gets us nowhere, and more often than not DOSes threads, and likewise and more importantly the minds of otherwise well-to-do poners from actually thinking about what's being proposed or asked about, how good or bad of an idea it is notwithstanding, and I see it (at least the current frequency of the utterance of "faggot," among other insults) as a relic of the early days of 4chan that I'd rather leave behind, see pic related for exhibit A. Agree with someponer or don't, just please be cool and polite about it.
>>6207
I wouldn't really call it a "technological restriction", tbh. /mlpol/ has very, very high bump limits, even for an altchan. We didn't always have bump limits this high, and it's questionable if our site's quality really improved at all after we raised it again and again.
I wouldn't really call it a "technological restriction", tbh. /mlpol/ has very, very high bump limits, even for an altchan. We didn't always have bump limits this high, and it's questionable if our site's quality really improved at all after we raised it again and again.
>>6208
>I wouldn't really call it a "technological restriction", tbh. /mlpol/ has very, very high bump limits, even for an altchan.
Whatever it may be, I would still maintain that the perceived problem is something that could more easily and robustly be solved by a paradigmatic and cultural shift. Some threads indeed have gone well into hundreds of posts, not being of a general nature, and yet more have been bumped off the catalog before they've reached a single hundred.
The perceived problem we appear to be attempting to solve here is that there are too many posts in general-type threads, without those posts being distributed to other threads, thereby providing an opportunity to raise the overall quality of the site. If I am correct in that assumption, a good solution might be for poners to create more threads instead of post in the threads reaching the bump limit. We really only seem to differ on how to go about encouraging that type of behavior; would it be too much of a stretch to claim that, should more poners create more threads more quickly on their own, perceived stagnation of threads and topics might be avoided, and indeed that could end up facilitating discussion more than a hard cap could provide?
Put another way, if I have the option of having 16 gigs of RAM, as opposed to 8, but I usually didn't go anywhere near filling 8 gigs anyway, myself I would still choose to have 16 gigs. Just because sometimes I could stand to use it, if absolutely necessary, since I would rather do what I needed to on one computer, rather than starting up another to finish up the job.
>I wouldn't really call it a "technological restriction", tbh. /mlpol/ has very, very high bump limits, even for an altchan.
Whatever it may be, I would still maintain that the perceived problem is something that could more easily and robustly be solved by a paradigmatic and cultural shift. Some threads indeed have gone well into hundreds of posts, not being of a general nature, and yet more have been bumped off the catalog before they've reached a single hundred.
The perceived problem we appear to be attempting to solve here is that there are too many posts in general-type threads, without those posts being distributed to other threads, thereby providing an opportunity to raise the overall quality of the site. If I am correct in that assumption, a good solution might be for poners to create more threads instead of post in the threads reaching the bump limit. We really only seem to differ on how to go about encouraging that type of behavior; would it be too much of a stretch to claim that, should more poners create more threads more quickly on their own, perceived stagnation of threads and topics might be avoided, and indeed that could end up facilitating discussion more than a hard cap could provide?
Put another way, if I have the option of having 16 gigs of RAM, as opposed to 8, but I usually didn't go anywhere near filling 8 gigs anyway, myself I would still choose to have 16 gigs. Just because sometimes I could stand to use it, if absolutely necessary, since I would rather do what I needed to on one computer, rather than starting up another to finish up the job.
>>6209
I think extending the bump limits to this point has been a failed experiment. Increasing the bump limits hasn't done anything but create scenarios where Anons reply to OP's posted years ago. It was better when the bump limits were smaller.
I think extending the bump limits to this point has been a failed experiment. Increasing the bump limits hasn't done anything but create scenarios where Anons reply to OP's posted years ago. It was better when the bump limits were smaller.
File (): 2097FA80BF0172EC0EA42B6CB0633F6E-788623.jpg (770.1 KB, 1920x1200, My-Little-Pony-Friendship-is-Magic-3088.jpg)
>>6210
>I think extending the bump limits to this point has been a failed experiment.
Absurd.
>Increasing the bump limits hasn't done anything but create scenarios where Anons reply to OP's posted years ago.
So what? If an anon has something to add, so be it. A 2 years old post doesn't change the written ideas.
If the thread is still in the catalog, to answer to it is pretty valid.
On the other hand, if a thread is still in the catalog after 2 years, it is because of a lack of new ones.
>I think extending the bump limits to this point has been a failed experiment.
Absurd.
>Increasing the bump limits hasn't done anything but create scenarios where Anons reply to OP's posted years ago.
So what? If an anon has something to add, so be it. A 2 years old post doesn't change the written ideas.
If the thread is still in the catalog, to answer to it is pretty valid.
On the other hand, if a thread is still in the catalog after 2 years, it is because of a lack of new ones.
>>6215
We lost the feeling of having normal sized threads on our board.
What was the benefit though? Why did we do it in the first place.
We lost the feeling of having normal sized threads on our board.
What was the benefit though? Why did we do it in the first place.
Anonymous
No.6221
File (): 2D50C55DD50D1166B718F8B4D93BC117-87968.jpg (85.9 KB, 1280x720, changellings.jpg)
I think the absurdly long bump limits make it pretty easy to derail threads. Anons flame at eachother over something that was said weeks ago and continue to flame over it for months. If we had reasonable bump limits conversations would get a fresh start every now and then.
>>6400
You'd be surprised how long some will stay mad at you for across multiple threads for multiple years, but bump limits won't change that.
People would just move on to the latest locations of the same discussions more often. And people with drawings of OCs pinned to dart boards would still play darts to take a break from the pool table I gifted then after living in their heads rent-free for so long.
You'd be surprised how long some will stay mad at you for across multiple threads for multiple years, but bump limits won't change that.
People would just move on to the latest locations of the same discussions more often. And people with drawings of OCs pinned to dart boards would still play darts to take a break from the pool table I gifted then after living in their heads rent-free for so long.
>>6406
I think it could be better to go back to smaller bump limits, though. I don't like this 1000+ post status quo. I feel a bit inclined to help reverse it because I feel partially responsible for causing it; requesting that my favorite threads just be extended because I was too lazy to make new ones. I've slowly come to realize that that may have been to the detriment of site quality.
I think we could at least reduce it. Maybe cap it at 500. That would still be more than either /pol/ or /mlp/.
I think it could be better to go back to smaller bump limits, though. I don't like this 1000+ post status quo. I feel a bit inclined to help reverse it because I feel partially responsible for causing it; requesting that my favorite threads just be extended because I was too lazy to make new ones. I've slowly come to realize that that may have been to the detriment of site quality.
I think we could at least reduce it. Maybe cap it at 500. That would still be more than either /pol/ or /mlp/.
>>6407
I think it could be better to keep the same bump limits, though. I like this 600/700+ post status quo. I feel a bit inclined to help keep it because I feel partially responsible for conserve it; requesting that my favorite threads just be kept because I was too concerned not to make duplicated new ones. I've slowly come to realize that that may have been to the improvement of site quality.
I think it could be better to keep the same bump limits, though. I like this 600/700+ post status quo. I feel a bit inclined to help keep it because I feel partially responsible for conserve it; requesting that my favorite threads just be kept because I was too concerned not to make duplicated new ones. I've slowly come to realize that that may have been to the improvement of site quality.
>>6410
We had normal bump limits for at least 2 and a half years, maybe three. The long bump limits are a new thing.
Also, idk if that's exactly what I want to define us as a community.
We had normal bump limits for at least 2 and a half years, maybe three. The long bump limits are a new thing.
Also, idk if that's exactly what I want to define us as a community.
Anonymous
No.6413
>>6412
Aryanne is a meme and mascot who predates the board, but certainly defines our community. I was referring to meta features though.
Aryanne is a meme and mascot who predates the board, but certainly defines our community. I was referring to meta features though.
Anonymous
No.6456
File (): FC805E68E6BBF52CE672FCDE27E09820-452257.png (441.7 KB, 600x849, 1640744387.png)
>>5989
Yeah I bet you think about sucking balls all the time, don't you tranny faggot. I bet you'd even suck Nigel's balls, for all the bitching you do at him.
>>6218
I think this is really getting to the rub of the matter. You act like you don't have feelings because you think that if you had to face them you'd probably have shot yourself in the head quite a while ago. So you feel like you've got to try and fuck with other people so you can distract yourself. I fucking hate your guts (and rightfully so) but I assume it wouldn't exactly be an honorable move to kick someone that's likely to say something like "the truth hurts more than anything else" or brags about living "rent free" like being a piece of shit is some kind of accomplishment. I mean your life is already over, and since I'm simply better than you I'll try to help anyone, even a wretch like you, whenever I can. All you really need to learn to do is to ask politely for it, the help. Otherwise you're going to keep pushing people away and wondering why they think you're such a piece of trash (I mean I know you know already but it's clearly because you are). You can be fucking with other people's feelings, sure, but that's nothing to be bragging about. I want to call you all sorts of adhoms but for some reason I feel like that's something you actually want, to be validated that you're some kind of cumstained faggot, and it's not as if you're not, it's just that I feel as though you've got some perverted need to show yourself that nobody's righteous so that you don't have to act with righteousness yourself. So unfortunately I can't accommodate that for you, any more than you've already scratched out of me, but it would behoove you to know that none of what you're doing is in any way something to take pride in. The best you can really do is to drag other people; and in any case it doesn't really matter whether or not they win, you've already lost because you've gotten your balls cut off and are an unrepentant nigger about it. Like I've been saying, you need to either man the fuck up or paint the walls with your brains already like you've been planning on doing. And in case you had any questions about it, you are most definitely a burden to other people. You might be able to bully these other poor bastards and hangers-on, but they would do well to stop enabling people like you, and if there is a masculine part to your brain still I think deep down you know that already. But if the hormones have taken over completely then you're going to disregard what I'm saying precisely because it touches a nerve. This really isn't surprising to people that still have their nuts, aka those that haven't already gotten themselves damned. I could go on, but I think if you haven't gotten the idea already, then you're already set on sucking some buckshot out of a boomstick, and there's really nothing to do. Anyway, get fucked in the ass tranny faggot. I'm sure you'll gladly oblige.
Yeah I bet you think about sucking balls all the time, don't you tranny faggot. I bet you'd even suck Nigel's balls, for all the bitching you do at him.
>>6218
I think this is really getting to the rub of the matter. You act like you don't have feelings because you think that if you had to face them you'd probably have shot yourself in the head quite a while ago. So you feel like you've got to try and fuck with other people so you can distract yourself. I fucking hate your guts (and rightfully so) but I assume it wouldn't exactly be an honorable move to kick someone that's likely to say something like "the truth hurts more than anything else" or brags about living "rent free" like being a piece of shit is some kind of accomplishment. I mean your life is already over, and since I'm simply better than you I'll try to help anyone, even a wretch like you, whenever I can. All you really need to learn to do is to ask politely for it, the help. Otherwise you're going to keep pushing people away and wondering why they think you're such a piece of trash (I mean I know you know already but it's clearly because you are). You can be fucking with other people's feelings, sure, but that's nothing to be bragging about. I want to call you all sorts of adhoms but for some reason I feel like that's something you actually want, to be validated that you're some kind of cumstained faggot, and it's not as if you're not, it's just that I feel as though you've got some perverted need to show yourself that nobody's righteous so that you don't have to act with righteousness yourself. So unfortunately I can't accommodate that for you, any more than you've already scratched out of me, but it would behoove you to know that none of what you're doing is in any way something to take pride in. The best you can really do is to drag other people; and in any case it doesn't really matter whether or not they win, you've already lost because you've gotten your balls cut off and are an unrepentant nigger about it. Like I've been saying, you need to either man the fuck up or paint the walls with your brains already like you've been planning on doing. And in case you had any questions about it, you are most definitely a burden to other people. You might be able to bully these other poor bastards and hangers-on, but they would do well to stop enabling people like you, and if there is a masculine part to your brain still I think deep down you know that already. But if the hormones have taken over completely then you're going to disregard what I'm saying precisely because it touches a nerve. This really isn't surprising to people that still have their nuts, aka those that haven't already gotten themselves damned. I could go on, but I think if you haven't gotten the idea already, then you're already set on sucking some buckshot out of a boomstick, and there's really nothing to do. Anyway, get fucked in the ass tranny faggot. I'm sure you'll gladly oblige.
Anonymous
No.6457
>>6409
>requesting that my favorite threads just be kept
Couldn't you just make new threads with the same topic?
We're not a very fast board. Even if the bump limit were just 300 it would still take weeks for some of our more active threads to hit bump limit, let alone slide. Making a new thread every month for a topic you care about isn't that much to ask imo.
>requesting that my favorite threads just be kept
Couldn't you just make new threads with the same topic?
We're not a very fast board. Even if the bump limit were just 300 it would still take weeks for some of our more active threads to hit bump limit, let alone slide. Making a new thread every month for a topic you care about isn't that much to ask imo.
>>6402
Is it though? I woudn't say posting quality has really improved at all since we made the bump limits this long.
Is it though? I woudn't say posting quality has really improved at all since we made the bump limits this long.
Anonymous
No.6470
>>6464
For one, they prevent the few pseudo-enerals we do have from having to post dozens of 'old bread past bump, new edition', which also avoids wanton 'same images from last thread' posts.
For one, they prevent the few pseudo-enerals we do have from having to post dozens of 'old bread past bump, new edition', which also avoids wanton 'same images from last thread' posts.
So, are we ever going to do anything about the fact that threads on /vx/ don't slide?
Bump limits exist for a reason, and extending them I feel has contributed to a detrimental departure from the flow of fresh ideas that make chan-like boards attractive in the first place. 300 would be enough, 500 would be a lot. We're a slow board; we shouldn't need absurdly high bump limits.
Bump limits exist for a reason, and extending them I feel has contributed to a detrimental departure from the flow of fresh ideas that make chan-like boards attractive in the first place. 300 would be enough, 500 would be a lot. We're a slow board; we shouldn't need absurdly high bump limits.
>>7225
Whats the catalog page limit set to?
>2 billion bumps of flat earth nonsense
Gee, surely that wont be exploited ever
Whats the catalog page limit set to?
>2 billion bumps of flat earth nonsense
Gee, surely that wont be exploited ever
Anonymous
No.7229
>>7228
Clearly to satisfy the overwhelming cries of "/vx/ is too smol"
Let this be a lesson to any remaining oldfags. All that remains of Mlpol is a skinsuit, worn by staff to exercise tjeir degenerate fantasies.
Clearly to satisfy the overwhelming cries of "/vx/ is too smol"
Let this be a lesson to any remaining oldfags. All that remains of Mlpol is a skinsuit, worn by staff to exercise tjeir degenerate fantasies.
File (): C1DCEAA2FB8FC0587CADFEDED19F1AF5-349677.jpg (341.5 KB, 1311x877, The-Silence-of-the-Lambs-4.jpg)
Pooper said the archive for this board didn't worked properly, so they had to come up with a way to preserve old threads for the time being.
Anonymous
No.7238
>>7230
>All that remains of Mlpol is a skinsuit, worn by staff to exercise tjeir degenerate fantasies.
>All that remains of Mlpol is a skinsuit, worn by staff to exercise tjeir degenerate fantasies.
File (): FF037D07CAF4E94125A28E19AEB10116-22568.mp3 (22.0 KB, , kill yourself faggot.mp3)
>>7235
The reason historically /vx/ didn't have an Archive was because when the site was using vichan/NPFChan there was no Archive, and threads that slided off the catalog were gone and lost forever. So the high bump limit and catalog size was kept to keep the board canon to its older self when we moved to new codebase.
The reason historically /vx/ didn't have an Archive was because when the site was using vichan/NPFChan there was no Archive, and threads that slided off the catalog were gone and lost forever. So the high bump limit and catalog size was kept to keep the board canon to its older self when we moved to new codebase.
>>7240
>to keep the board canon to its older self
So...you mean it's actually a technical issue, right?
>to keep the board canon to its older self
So...you mean it's actually a technical issue, right?
>>7241
There is no techical limitation that prevents us from changing the bump limit, catalog size etc. in the board config. But many RP treads on /vx/ enjoys and benefits from a high bump limit and changing it would alter the style of the board that it have had since its creation.
There is no techical limitation that prevents us from changing the bump limit, catalog size etc. in the board config. But many RP treads on /vx/ enjoys and benefits from a high bump limit and changing it would alter the style of the board that it have had since its creation.
File (): 8903FBD7F67C806B89E35EDFBE0D04FB-678511.png (662.6 KB, 1024x1120, 958364cd93f70173db2a4840aa927c71.png)
>>7230
Okay, retard.
>>7239
No u.
>>7240
I know that, but that was also kind of a long time ago. Are there any plans to fix it?
>>7242
It wouldn't be a major issue if the threads at the bottom of the catalog slide.
>See, I asked for this back in the day, and I am now recanting that request. Truth is it doesn't actually help roleplay go more smoothly.
That decision was also made when 80-90% of the posts on /mlpol/ were in roleplay threads on /vx/. It's not like that anymore, and I don't think it would be that much trouble to ask roleplayers to make new threads every 500 posts instead of every 1000-2000 posts. I've roleplayed on /vx/ long enough to know that it takes no mental effort to transfer roleplay from one old thread to a fresh one.
>would alter the style of the board that it have had since its creation
I really don't think it would significantly change, but that's just my opinion.
Okay, retard.
>>7239
No u.
>>7240
I know that, but that was also kind of a long time ago. Are there any plans to fix it?
>>7242
It wouldn't be a major issue if the threads at the bottom of the catalog slide.
>See, I asked for this back in the day, and I am now recanting that request. Truth is it doesn't actually help roleplay go more smoothly.
That decision was also made when 80-90% of the posts on /mlpol/ were in roleplay threads on /vx/. It's not like that anymore, and I don't think it would be that much trouble to ask roleplayers to make new threads every 500 posts instead of every 1000-2000 posts. I've roleplayed on /vx/ long enough to know that it takes no mental effort to transfer roleplay from one old thread to a fresh one.
>would alter the style of the board that it have had since its creation
I really don't think it would significantly change, but that's just my opinion.
I would like to once again raise the issue that the bump limits are way too high.
>>7663
That reason being data storage and processing power.
The core argument being made of lower bump limits is to produce more CONTENT. That is threads and posts.
The issue being people who already invested time and energy lose their investment and have to restart over.
This is good for image board sites that have lots of users all the time even bots and shills and shit. Because the content per 1,000 users per board is about half that with much of it junk, some of it interesting, some meta, some decent, many bad, and a few great posts (which then spawn meta and more posts).
Right here and now this website doesn't have that kind of traffic. You don't need to dive through many multiple piles of garbage to find some awesome things.
Other sites 'made' generals to hold up something for longer, because it was somewhat 'important' somehow.
>b-but generals a shit?!
Yes, because most posts there are absolute GARBAGE.
Longer bump limits does two things solidly coherent discussion and ideas arise and can span over time. That favors Better Posts inside of threads.
Consider a hypothetical larger userbase that posted once every three seconds.
The flow of threads increase to a large degree, the most important/entertaining/bait stick around with more time because of more shit posts while other lesser threads fall off.
Not every thread is a hit, nor do they all stand the test of time, sometimes they run out of steam due to lacking CONTENT.
If you made threads with bump limits of three posts we would be speeding by like any other site. But it's three fucking posts before another post that is near identical has to be made again.
Now if this site had the same to roughly the same bump limit as other places you find similar issues cropping up still.
Now consider a forum that has 'no bump limit' they usually don't endlessly continue living for decades. They die when the topic is exhausted or killed.
Some topics last nearly forever, which is also a containment 'thread/forum/discussion'. How do places like that survive?
By users posting new shit. Just like other image board sites much of it is crap.
One other thing other image board site(s) have is inducting newfags into the fold, which means reposting the best of the best content and arguments and images and ect. Yeah there's lurk moar newfag, but at some point the newfag is going to post something and it'll be ripped apart.
If too many newfags aren't properly assimilated a 'newfag' culture emerges. This occurs with shills and glowie posters as well. They are distinct.
<What about this website?
Due to the roughly consistent nature of interests there isn't monsoons of newfags and redditors and shitbags.
>Oh boy let's go get all those faggots so they can shit up the place and content will happen!
Not so fast, see the various boards have varying interests, but usually have a userbase that spans them all (more or less) leading to a total website culture of /mlpol/.net
Having people pour more time and energy and effort leads to diminishing returns, as new things sprout from new stuff (even if it's crap). Which is why specific boards (/tv/ /pol/) on other websites produce more stuff.
Now that mlp:fim ran its course there is fewer new stuff, especially fewer external new stuff.
>What about /a/?
Everyone would have to also be interested of the same content for more meme like content to properly sprout.
Which is the whole nature of /mlpol/ in the first place.
The whole thing with /pol/ boards is dealing with both newfags and shills and glowies. Which means recapping posts and education by entertainment.
Because common false truths are ripped apart again and again. The content is in the variety of ways falsehoods are ripped apart.
Until the whole monsoon of bots, newfags, shills and glowies.
Even then it's retreading the same ground over and over.
That reason being data storage and processing power.
The core argument being made of lower bump limits is to produce more CONTENT. That is threads and posts.
The issue being people who already invested time and energy lose their investment and have to restart over.
This is good for image board sites that have lots of users all the time even bots and shills and shit. Because the content per 1,000 users per board is about half that with much of it junk, some of it interesting, some meta, some decent, many bad, and a few great posts (which then spawn meta and more posts).
Right here and now this website doesn't have that kind of traffic. You don't need to dive through many multiple piles of garbage to find some awesome things.
Other sites 'made' generals to hold up something for longer, because it was somewhat 'important' somehow.
>b-but generals a shit?!
Yes, because most posts there are absolute GARBAGE.
Longer bump limits does two things solidly coherent discussion and ideas arise and can span over time. That favors Better Posts inside of threads.
Consider a hypothetical larger userbase that posted once every three seconds.
The flow of threads increase to a large degree, the most important/entertaining/bait stick around with more time because of more shit posts while other lesser threads fall off.
Not every thread is a hit, nor do they all stand the test of time, sometimes they run out of steam due to lacking CONTENT.
If you made threads with bump limits of three posts we would be speeding by like any other site. But it's three fucking posts before another post that is near identical has to be made again.
Now if this site had the same to roughly the same bump limit as other places you find similar issues cropping up still.
Now consider a forum that has 'no bump limit' they usually don't endlessly continue living for decades. They die when the topic is exhausted or killed.
Some topics last nearly forever, which is also a containment 'thread/forum/discussion'. How do places like that survive?
By users posting new shit. Just like other image board sites much of it is crap.
One other thing other image board site(s) have is inducting newfags into the fold, which means reposting the best of the best content and arguments and images and ect. Yeah there's lurk moar newfag, but at some point the newfag is going to post something and it'll be ripped apart.
If too many newfags aren't properly assimilated a 'newfag' culture emerges. This occurs with shills and glowie posters as well. They are distinct.
<What about this website?
Due to the roughly consistent nature of interests there isn't monsoons of newfags and redditors and shitbags.
>Oh boy let's go get all those faggots so they can shit up the place and content will happen!
Not so fast, see the various boards have varying interests, but usually have a userbase that spans them all (more or less) leading to a total website culture of /mlpol/.net
Having people pour more time and energy and effort leads to diminishing returns, as new things sprout from new stuff (even if it's crap). Which is why specific boards (/tv/ /pol/) on other websites produce more stuff.
Now that mlp:fim ran its course there is fewer new stuff, especially fewer external new stuff.
>What about /a/?
Everyone would have to also be interested of the same content for more meme like content to properly sprout.
Which is the whole nature of /mlpol/ in the first place.
The whole thing with /pol/ boards is dealing with both newfags and shills and glowies. Which means recapping posts and education by entertainment.
Because common false truths are ripped apart again and again. The content is in the variety of ways falsehoods are ripped apart.
Until the whole monsoon of bots, newfags, shills and glowies.
Even then it's retreading the same ground over and over.
Anonymous
No.7665
>>7664
>b-but generals a shit?!
>Yes, because most posts there are absolute GARBAGE.
It might be, but it is THAT garbage or nothing. So, I would bet on the undesirable shitposting all the way instead of rambling on a dead board.
>b-but generals a shit?!
>Yes, because most posts there are absolute GARBAGE.
It might be, but it is THAT garbage or nothing. So, I would bet on the undesirable shitposting all the way instead of rambling on a dead board.
Anonymous
No.7666
>>7664
>data storage and processing power.
It's more than that.
>people who already invested time and energy lose their investment and have to restart over
After weeks or even months. That isn't that much of a bar to meet.
>This is good for image board sites that have lots of users
Not just that. Most other altchans have lower bump limits, some even slower than us.
>Longer bump limits does two things solidly coherent discussion and ideas arise and can span over time
It doesn't, really. A thread where "Last 200 posts" isn't nearly enough is often several dozen redundant and/or incoherent conversations that the users cannot remember the beginning or end to.
Look at the longest threads on /vx/: do they look like coherent conversations to you?
>That favors Better Posts inside of threads.
What is this even based on? The posts inside threads were not worse before the bump limits got this high. Are you saying quality was worse in the early days of this site?
>But it's three fucking posts before another post that is near identical has to be made again.
It doesn't need to be three, ffs. Why not 500?
>data storage and processing power.
It's more than that.
>people who already invested time and energy lose their investment and have to restart over
After weeks or even months. That isn't that much of a bar to meet.
>This is good for image board sites that have lots of users
Not just that. Most other altchans have lower bump limits, some even slower than us.
>Longer bump limits does two things solidly coherent discussion and ideas arise and can span over time
It doesn't, really. A thread where "Last 200 posts" isn't nearly enough is often several dozen redundant and/or incoherent conversations that the users cannot remember the beginning or end to.
Look at the longest threads on /vx/: do they look like coherent conversations to you?
>That favors Better Posts inside of threads.
What is this even based on? The posts inside threads were not worse before the bump limits got this high. Are you saying quality was worse in the early days of this site?
>But it's three fucking posts before another post that is near identical has to be made again.
It doesn't need to be three, ffs. Why not 500?
File (): B955D5474B5F4E85B8006A652355EF9E-79223.jpg (77.4 KB, 1280x720, FQ_1TdXX0AYf248.jpeg)
>>7661
Not This Shit Again.
I would take you seriously if your post count would be even close to those you are complaining of.
Not This Shit Again.
I would take you seriously if your post count would be even close to those you are complaining of.
>>7667
I'm not complaining about other posters at all. I'm saying that the bump limits were better before they were raised.
I'm not complaining about other posters at all. I'm saying that the bump limits were better before they were raised.
>>7671
Because threads under to be coherent length on this site and were easy to follow and concise conversations, but then at some point for some reason it was decided that the bump limits needed to be doubled and then tripled, causing it to drift further and further away from the /mlpol/ I knew in terms of conversation formats. It was a decision that was made discreetly at a time when changes to the site were usually only made after long periods of user input. I can only assume it was done so because it was thought to be inconsequential at the time, but I think it really has been consequential, and I think tripling the bump limits was a hasty decision.
Because threads under to be coherent length on this site and were easy to follow and concise conversations, but then at some point for some reason it was decided that the bump limits needed to be doubled and then tripled, causing it to drift further and further away from the /mlpol/ I knew in terms of conversation formats. It was a decision that was made discreetly at a time when changes to the site were usually only made after long periods of user input. I can only assume it was done so because it was thought to be inconsequential at the time, but I think it really has been consequential, and I think tripling the bump limits was a hasty decision.
Anonymous
No.7677
>>7671
>>7676
>And How so?
Because the natural lifespan of a thread is part of what distinguishes the conversation format of chansites, from both a meta standpoint and a psychological one.
From a meta standpoint, it ensures that a thread stays on topic with concise discussions, and doesn't devolve into hundreds of separate loosely-related conversations. It also ensures that there is a suitable timeframe for conversations, so users don't necro-reply to posts made weeks ago. This keeps threads on-topic, currently relevant, and ensures that all posters are speaking within a relevant timeframe to have a conversation. This is why threads have bump limits, including slow altchan sites, because having incredibly long threads doesn't lend itself to conversation quality, perhaps even moreso for slowchans. When a single thread lasts thousands of posts, all the conversations blend together, and content is buried in an avalanche of posts (and often cannot be reposted until due to duplicate files). I'm worst case scenarios it starts to read more like an endless subreddit or Facebook feed than a chansite, and that is not what I want this site to be, and I don't think anyone else wants this site to be either.
From a psychological standpoint, the bump limit gives a thread a natural lifespan, which effects poster participation in a number of ways. First and foremost, it means that users have an incentive to post to particular threads while they last, and not in two months. It also means that each thread has a length that means users who backread can confidently remember and reference the conversations in each thread. It goes for both one-off threads and the individual parts of generals. The blending of conversations and the burying of content quashes incentive for posters to participate in a particular thread or produce content, and that contributes to poster hesitancy. It's basically a dilution effect, where the first 300 posts of a 1000 post thread detract from all consecutive posts while themselves not getting any replies because they were made months ago.
Knowing all that, what did we actually gain from these changes? Changes that were made with little prior input. How did raising the bump limits increase the quality or quantity of content on our site? Did threads get better? Are we having more fun than before? I have seen no notable improvements in the past few years that can be attributed to the raising of the bump limits.
>>7676
>And How so?
Because the natural lifespan of a thread is part of what distinguishes the conversation format of chansites, from both a meta standpoint and a psychological one.
From a meta standpoint, it ensures that a thread stays on topic with concise discussions, and doesn't devolve into hundreds of separate loosely-related conversations. It also ensures that there is a suitable timeframe for conversations, so users don't necro-reply to posts made weeks ago. This keeps threads on-topic, currently relevant, and ensures that all posters are speaking within a relevant timeframe to have a conversation. This is why threads have bump limits, including slow altchan sites, because having incredibly long threads doesn't lend itself to conversation quality, perhaps even moreso for slowchans. When a single thread lasts thousands of posts, all the conversations blend together, and content is buried in an avalanche of posts (and often cannot be reposted until due to duplicate files). I'm worst case scenarios it starts to read more like an endless subreddit or Facebook feed than a chansite, and that is not what I want this site to be, and I don't think anyone else wants this site to be either.
From a psychological standpoint, the bump limit gives a thread a natural lifespan, which effects poster participation in a number of ways. First and foremost, it means that users have an incentive to post to particular threads while they last, and not in two months. It also means that each thread has a length that means users who backread can confidently remember and reference the conversations in each thread. It goes for both one-off threads and the individual parts of generals. The blending of conversations and the burying of content quashes incentive for posters to participate in a particular thread or produce content, and that contributes to poster hesitancy. It's basically a dilution effect, where the first 300 posts of a 1000 post thread detract from all consecutive posts while themselves not getting any replies because they were made months ago.
Knowing all that, what did we actually gain from these changes? Changes that were made with little prior input. How did raising the bump limits increase the quality or quantity of content on our site? Did threads get better? Are we having more fun than before? I have seen no notable improvements in the past few years that can be attributed to the raising of the bump limits.
Anonymous
No.7678
>>7664
>Now consider a forum that has 'no bump limit' they usually don't endlessly continue living for decades. They die when the topic is exhausted or killed.
That's missing the point. It's not about the topics themselves dying off, but the quality of discussion in a single particular thread being diluted over time due to excessively long bump limits, and for those threads experiencing conversation degradation as the thread goes on. If a topic is continued after the lifespan of a thread ends,
Forums with "no bump limit" generally aren't the same as chansites. Discord, reddit, Twitter, and Facebook all lack bump limits, but they're a very different format from us.
And you keep making this argument that having higher bump limits is better for a slow site, but I think the opposite is really true. A slow site can handle shorter bump limits easily, as it would still take a while for threads to fill up. If /mlpol/ switched back to lower bump limits, our most popular threads would still take weeks to fill up, just not months. Is a thread that lasts for weeks really not enough? Why exactly was it necessary to stretch the bump limits this far? Where did that need arise? Who was it that claimed that /mlpol/ was filling up its threads too quickly, when almost all of the posters were from /mlp/ and /pol/?
>Now consider a forum that has 'no bump limit' they usually don't endlessly continue living for decades. They die when the topic is exhausted or killed.
That's missing the point. It's not about the topics themselves dying off, but the quality of discussion in a single particular thread being diluted over time due to excessively long bump limits, and for those threads experiencing conversation degradation as the thread goes on. If a topic is continued after the lifespan of a thread ends,
Forums with "no bump limit" generally aren't the same as chansites. Discord, reddit, Twitter, and Facebook all lack bump limits, but they're a very different format from us.
And you keep making this argument that having higher bump limits is better for a slow site, but I think the opposite is really true. A slow site can handle shorter bump limits easily, as it would still take a while for threads to fill up. If /mlpol/ switched back to lower bump limits, our most popular threads would still take weeks to fill up, just not months. Is a thread that lasts for weeks really not enough? Why exactly was it necessary to stretch the bump limits this far? Where did that need arise? Who was it that claimed that /mlpol/ was filling up its threads too quickly, when almost all of the posters were from /mlp/ and /pol/?
Anonymous
No.7746
Another reason why I think raising the bump limits was a mistake is that it partly renders rule 10 ineffective.
Anonymous
No.7750
File (): 4C9C730847DA3A4713B36ACEFC38258C-135849.jpg (132.7 KB, 1000x563, Confused_Applejack_is_confused_S01E04.jpg)
Could for Celestia' sake anyone (or all of them) of the anons arguing about bump limits and conversation degradation start posting new threads? Because if they are only to give their opinion instead of shitposting hard, then all their rhetoric is hollow and void.
Anonymous
No.7751
Less content>>>Shit filler content
Anonymous
No.8275
Bump