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)
38 replies and 6 files omitted.
>>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.
[Reply] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 100 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]
You are viewing older replies. Click [View All] or [Last n Posts] to vew latest posts.
Clicking update will load all posts posted after last post on this page.
Post pagination: [Prev] [1-50] [51-88] [Next] [Live (last 50 replies)]
88 replies | 13 files | 26 UUIDs | Page 2